Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Shanti Bai And 2 Others vs Horilal Died Thru- Mahendra And ... on 8 July, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Second Appeal No.467 of 2007
1. Smt. Shanti Bai, Widow of Late Shri Dhanaram, aged about 45 years,
Caste Yadav, R/o Yadavpara, Barpali, Champa, Tahsil Champa,
District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
2. Bangla (died) through legal representatives
2-a) Smt. Dhanwantin Yadav, Widow of Late Bangla @ Jawahar Lal
Yadav, aged about 36 years.
2-b) Ku. Vanshika Yadav, D/o Late Bangla @ Jawahar Lal Yadav,
aged about 8 years. (Minor)
2-c) Amit Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Bangla @ Jawahar Lal Yadav, aged
about 7 years. (Minor)
All residents of Yadavpara, Barpali, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District
Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
Appellants No.2-b & 2-c are minor through the natural guardian
mother namely Smt. Dhanwantin Yadav, Widow of Late Bangla @
Jawahar Lal Yadav.
3. Suresh, S/o Late Shri Dhanaram, aged about 20 years, Caste Yadav,
R/o Yadavpara, Barpali, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
(Defendants)
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Horilal (died) through legal representatives
(Plaintiff)
1(A) Mahendra, S/o Hori Lal Yadav, aged about 40 years;
1(B) Rajendra, S/o Hori Lal Yadav, aged about 48 years;
1(C) Brihaspati Bai, D/o Hori Lal Yadav, aged about 48 years;
1(D) Shanti Bai (died and deleted)
Respondents No.1(A) to 1(C) are residents of Village Torga, Tahsil
Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Bilaspur (now Janjgir-
Champa) (C.G.)
(Defendant No.4)
---- Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants/Defendants: Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1(A) to 1(C)/LRs of the plaintiff: -
Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2/State: -
Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judgment On Board
08/07/2021
1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video
conferencing.
2. Heard on the application under Order 23 Rule 1 (proviso) of the CPC
for grant of leave filed on behalf of the appellants / defendants.
3. The application is allowed.
4. Also heard on the application under Order 23 Rules 1 & 3 of the CPC
filed on behalf of both the parties.
5. The appeal has been admitted for final hearing on 2-7-2010.
6. Three defendants i.e. appellants No.1 & 3 herein and LRs of appellant
No.2 herein and LRs of the original plaintiff Horilal / private
respondents herein, have filed application that the matter has been
compromised between the parties and as per the compromise
application, LRs of the plaintiff / private respondents herein would get
8 / 25 (32%) share and the defendants / appellants herein would get
17 / 25 (68%) share in the suit property shown in Schedules 1 & 2 of
the plaint except Khasra No.181 measuring area 0.50 acre situated at
Village Barpali, Patwari Halka No.2, Tahsil Champa mentioned in
Schedule 1; Khasra No.2063 measuring area 0.02 acre situated at
Village Sheoni, Patwari Halka No.3, Tahsil Champa; and House
No.22, Sheet No.31, Plot No.33, area 377 sq.mtrs., situated at
Municipal Council Champa, Barpali, Patwari Halka No.2 mentioned in
Schedule 2 of the plaint. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the compromise
application state as under: -
"2) That, as per the compromise the plaintiffs /
respondents have agreed to get 8/25 (32%) and
defendants / appellants have agreed to get 17/25 (68%) in
the suit property vide scheduled 1 & 2 except Khasra
No.181 measuring area 0.50 acre situated at village
Barpali, P.H.No.2, Tahsil Champa mentioned in schedule -
1, Khasra No.2063 measuring 0.02 acre situated at village
Sheoni, P.H.No.3, Tahsil Champa and House No.22, Sheet
No.31, Plot No.33, Area 377 sq.mtr. situated at Municipal
Council, Champa, Barpali. P.H.No.2, Schedule - 2
attached with the plaint. Copy of the Schedules is
enclosed herewith as Document No.D/1.
3) That, the plaintiff have abandoned 17/25 (68%) share
in the aforesaid suit property giving the same in favour of
the defendants and the defendants have left 8/25 (32%) in
favour of the plaintiff."
7. In support of the application, on behalf of the plaintiff, Mahendra
Yadav, Rajendra Yadav and Brihaspati Bai have been examined,
whereas, on behalf of the defendants, Shanti Bai, Dhanwantin Yadav
and Suresh have been examined. They have unequivocally stated
before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) that without pressure or fear
they have compromised the dispute as they are near relatives and in
order to maintain relations, they have compromised the dispute.
8. Today, when the matter is taken-up, Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants herein / defendants, would submit that
since the matter has been compromised in terms of the compromise
application and the dispute has been settled amicably, the
compromise application deserves to be allowed and compromise
decree be passed.
9. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents
No.1(A) to 1(C) herein / LRs of the original plaintiff, also has made
similar submission that since the parties are near relatives and in
order to settle the dispute amicably, they have compromise the matter,
therefore, the compromise application be allowed.
10. I have considered the submissions raised on behalf of both the parties
and also gone through the compromise application.
11. Parties have also filed affidavits in support of the compromise
application. They have been examined before the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) and in their statements they have clearly stated
that they have compromised the dispute amicably and compromise
deed has been filed.
12. Considering the fact that parties are near relatives and they have
resolved the dispute amicably in terms of the compromise application
and they have defined their respective shares in the application which
they have accepted in affidavits as well as in the statements made
before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) and it is not shown that
undue pressure or any misrepresentation has been made, it would be
appropriate to accept the application filed under Order 23 Rules 1 & 3
of the CPC. Accordingly, the compromise application is allowed and
compromise decree be drawn making the application under Order 23
Rules 1 & 3 of the CPC and Schedules 1 & 2 of the plaint, a part of
the decree.
13. The second appeal stands finally disposed of having been
compromised between the parties. Parties shall bear their own
cost(s).
14. Compromise decree be drawn-up accordingly.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Soma
