Chattisgarh High Court
Ganendra Prasad Ray And Anr vs Smt.Sunanda Mazumdar on 24 June, 2025
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1
2025:CGHC:27194
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA No. 84 of 2008
1. Ganendra Prasad Ray, S/o. Late Dr. Nerbada Prasad Ray (Wrongly written
as Narmada), Aged about 55 years, R/o. B-8, Shivalik Housing Co-
operative Society, Sector 16-A, Vashi Navi Mumbai, 400703 (Maharastra)
Present Address House No. 3/572, Raja Talab, Raipur, Tahsil and District
Raipur (CG)
2. Tarun Prasad Ray S/o. Late Dr. Nerbada Prasad Ray (wrongly written as
Narmada), aged about 48 years, R/o. House No. 3/572 and 3/573, Raja
Talab, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG)
... Appellant(s)
versus
Smt. Sunanda Mazumdar W/o. Shri Deepak Shankar Mazumdar, Aged
about 51 years, R/o. House No. 3/573, Raja Talab, Raipur, Tahsil and
District- Raipur (CG)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akash Kundu, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
24/06/2025
1. The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against
the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2008 passed by 12th Additional
District Judge (FTC) Rapur in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2006 by which the suit
Digitally
signed by
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.25
10:27:21
+0530
filed by the appellants has been dismissed and it has been declared that
the plaintiffs and the defendant are the owner of 1/3rd share of the suit
property situated at Rajatalab, Raipur bearing House No. 3/572 and 3/573.
2. During pendency of the appeal, a mediation was carried out by this Court
itself and all the parties to the dispute have entered their appearance
before this Court through video conferencing and informed the Court that
draft compromise has already been prepared by them and they are ready
to follow the terms enumerated in the mutual compromise deed.
3. This Court on 08.05.2025 had directed the parties to appear before
Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for recording their statements.
In pursuance of direction given by this court, the parties have appeared
before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) for recording their statement and
in unequal terms they have stated that they have agreed to follow
conditions enumerated in the mutual compromise deed dated 18.06.2025.
Thereafter, an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC has been
filed before this Court wherein mutual compromise deed is annexed with
the application which reads as under:-
Þ6- ;g fd] i{k Øekad 3] orZeku esa vius ifjokj lfgr izdj.k esa layXu uD'ks
ds vuqlkj ,d fgLls ij vkaf'kd :i ls dkfct gS ,oa i{kdkj Øekad 3
i{kdkjksa ds firk ds }kjk fu"ikfnr olh;rukek fnukad 15-02-1992 ij fookn
ughaa djsxhA i{kdkj Øekad 3 dks fn;k x;k 1@3 ds fgLls ds Åij i{kdkj
Øekad 3 ,oa Hkfo"; eas muds okfjlkuksa dk LokfeRo gksxkA
7- ;g fd] ;g mYysf[kr djuk vko';d gS fd layXu uD'kk Annexure- 1
ds vuqlkj] i{k Øekad 3 dks eqfufliy esu jksM dh rjQ ¼lkeus½ iwoZ ls if'pr
fn'kk dh vksj 16 QqV 8 bap ¼lksyg QqV vkB bap½ pkSM+k ,oa mlh rjg] ihNs
dh rjQ] iwoZ ls if'pr dh rjQ 16 QqV 8 bap ¼lksyg QqV vkB bap½ pkSM+k
Hkwfe@laifRr izkIr dj jgh gSA
8- ;g fd] i{k Ø- 3] eq[; }kj@njoktk vanj tkus ds fy;s eqfufliy esu jksM
dh rjQ ¼lkeus½ ls iwoZ ls if'pe dh vksj izkIr laifRr 16 QqV 8 bap ¼lksyg
QqV vkB bap½ pkSM+k Hkwfe ij eq[; }kj@njoktk gsrq fuekZ.k djus gsrq Lora=
gksxhA blh rjg i{k Ø- 1 ,oa i{k Ø- 2 dks vius&vius fgLls esa izkIr
lEifRr@Hkwfe@?kj ds vanj tkus gsrq vyx&vyx eq[; }kj@njoktk
eqfufliy jksM dh rjQ ¼lkeus½ ls fuekZ.k djus gsrq Lora= gksaxs] ftlls Hkfo";
esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh fookn dh fLFkfr ugha cusxhA tSls fd layXu uD'ks
Annexure-1 esa n'kkZ;k x;k gSA
i{k Øekad 3 dks izkIr Hkwfe@laifRr dk forj.k ,oa pkSgn~nh fuEukuqlkj gksxh
South
16 QqV 8 bap pkSM+kbZ East West
ih-,l- oekZ th dk
edku
North
Plot 'C'
i{k Ø- 1 ,oa 2 dk 'ks"k cpk tehu
Total= 1250 oxZQhV
frokjh th dk
edku
QhV QhV
yack yack
16 QqV 8 bap pkSM+kbZ
¼eqfufliy esu jksM½
bl Åij mYysf[kr uD'ks ds vuqlkj] laifRr@fgLlk] i{k Øekad 3 dks
izkIr gksxh vkSj laifRr eki ds vuqlkj Hkwfe dk {ks=Qy 1250 QhV gksxk] bl
rjg i{k Øekad 1 dks Hkwfe dk {ks=Qy 1250 oxZQhV ,oa i{k Øekad 2 dks Hkwfe
dk {ks=Qy 1250 oxZQhV mudk fgLlk izkIr gksxkA tSls fd layXu uD'ks
Annexure-1 esa n'kkZ;k x;k gSA
;g fd i{kdkj Øekad 3 dk 1250 oxZQhV ij iw.kZ :i ls LokfeRo
jgsxk ,oa ekSds ij i{kdkj Øekad 1 ds fgLls esa vxj fdlh dkj.k o'k Hkwfe
de vkrh gS rks blds fy, i{kdkj Øekad 1 dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksxhAÞ
4. Since the compromise has been arrived at between the parties, therefore,
judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court is modified to the
terms of mutual compromise deed. The mutual compromise deed will be
part of the decree.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. A decree be drawn up.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
santosh
