Ramchandra vs Gauribai
2021 Latest Caselaw 3164 MP

                                          1
 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
                            National Lok Adalat
                   Second Appeal No.156 of 2015
Ramchandra (deceased) through his legal heirs Smt. Heerabai & Ors.
 Vs. Smt. Gauribai (deceased) through her legal heirs Rameshwar &
                                Ors.

Indore, Dated:- 10/07/2021

      Heard through video conferencing.

      Shri Nipun Choudhary, Counsel for the appellants.

      Shri J. B. Mehta, Counsel for the respondents.

This is an appeal filed by plaintiff against the judgment and

decree dated 09.07.2013 passed by II Civil Judge, Class-I, Dewas, in

Civil Suit No.11-A/11 and judgment dated 13.02.2015 passed by II

A.D.J., Dewas whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction

and the first appeal both have been dismissed respectively. Vide order

dated 21.06.2016 this appeal was admitted on the following

substantial question of law:-

"Whether the courts below have committed an error in disbelieving the will Ex.P-3 only on the ground that second witness of the will was not examined and the witness PW-2 Damodar Choudhary had not stated anything about the second witness of the will?"

During pendency of appeal, a compromise has arrived between

the parties and they have jointly filed an application under Order 23

Rule 3 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. The terms of the settlements

between the parties are reproduced below:-

"¼v½ [email protected] dks ;g Lohdkj gS fd mijksDr of.kZr xzke ikyuxj]

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE National Lok Adalat Second Appeal No.156 of 2015 Ramchandra (deceased) through his legal heirs Smt. Heerabai & Ors. Vs. Smt. Gauribai (deceased) through her legal heirs Rameshwar & Ors.

rglhy o ftyk nsokl dh mYysf[kr Hkwfe Lo- jkepanzth o nsokth dh LovftZr lEifRr jgh gksdj mlesa vihykFkhZ ds firk nsokth dk [email protected] LoRo jgk gksdj] [email protected] LoRo xaxkjke firk Hksjkth dk Fkk vkSj tks xaxkjke firk Hksjkth }kjk vius fyf[kr olh;rukek fnukad 22-03-2002 ds ek/;e ls ewy oknh jkepanz dks iznku fd;k Fkk vkSj rn~uqlkj jkepanz o mlds i'pkr muds iq=&iq=h vihykFkhZx.k mDr xaxkjke ds [email protected] gDd LoRo o vf/kdkj ds iw.kZ Lokeh gks x;s gksdj mDr lEiw.kZ Hkwfe;ksa ij viuk uke HkwfeLokeh dh gSfl;r ls vafdr djokus ds LoRokf/kdkjh gS vkSj mDr Hkwfe ij viuk ukekarj.k djokdj vf/kiR; j[kus] mi;ksx&miHkksx djus dk mUgsa iw.kZ vf/kdkj gSA xaxkjke dh jsLikaMsUV dqarhckbZ o ikoZrhckbZ ds iq=h gksus ds ukrs rFkk xkSjhckbZ o lkSjeckbZ ds iq=] iq=h] ifr gksus ds ukrs jsLikaMsUV dk dksbZ gDd] LoRo o vf/kdkj mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa ugha gSA ¼c½ jsLikaMsUV Hkfo"; esa Lo;a ;k vU; fdlh ek/;e] ,stsUV] eq[kR;kj] izfrfuf/k] mRrjkf/kdkjh vkfn ds ek/;e ls Hkfo"; esa mYysf[kr Hkwfe ;k fdlh lEifRr dks ysdj xaxkjke dk okfjl nf'kZr djrs gq, dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh] fookn] vojks/k [email protected] ds LokfeRo] vf/kiR;] mi;ksx o miHkksx esa u rks nsaxs vkSj uk gh ns ldsaxsA ¼l½ nksuksa i{kksa esa vc xaxkjke ds lEifRr dks ydj dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha gS o nksuksa ,d nwljs ds fo:} dksbZ dk;Zokgh uk rks djsaxs vkSj u gh dj ldsaxsA ¼n½ vihykFkhZx.k lEiw.Zk Hkwfe ij ukekarj.k dh dk;Zokgh rglhynkj egksn; ds ek/;e ls djsaxs vkSj mDr jkthukes vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij jsLikaMsUV dh iw.kZ gefr vko';drk vuqlkj ekuh tkos] vko';drk gksus ij jsLikaMsUV vihykFkhZx.k dks bl ckcn iw.kZ HkkSfrd lg;ksx iznku djsaxsA ¼b½ bl izdj.k dk O;; nksuksa i{k viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA"

In view of the above, the second appeal is disposed of.

Decree be drawn, accordingly.

               (Justice Vivek Rusia)                           (Aniket Abhay Naik)
                     Member                                         Member

Pankaj
Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANDEY
Date: 2021.07.14 17:08:31 +05'30'