Manoj Kumar vs Heeraman Jain
2023 Latest Caselaw 7990 MP

                              1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
             BEFORE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
                            &
         SHRI M.P.S RAGHUVANSHI, SR. ADVOCATE
                    ON THE 13 th OF MAY, 2023
                   FIRST APPEAL No. 45 of 2015

BETWEEN:-
1.    MANOJ KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI CHAMPA LAL
      JAIN, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O SHALIMAR GARDEN,
      NEAR JAIN FURNITURE, THATIPUR, MORAR,
      DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    MANISH KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE SHRI CHAMPA
      LAL JAIN, R/O PANKAJ PRESS, NAI AAWADI,
      LAXMINARAYAN KA BADA, DISTRICT BHIND
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    ROMESH S/O LATE SHRI CHAMPA LAL JAIN, R/O
      BHIND AT PRESENT PHALKA BAZAR, NEAR
      KOTWALI, ROMESH OFFSET, LASHKAR DISTRICT
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI S.D. SINGH - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    HEERAMAN JAIN S/O LATE SHRI MUNNALAL
      JAIN

2.    MAHAVEER PRASAD      JAIN   S/O   LATE   SHRI
      MUNNALAL JAIN

3.    SUBHASH CHAND JAIN S/O LATE SHRI
      MUNNALAL JAIN, ALL R/O SADAR BAZAR,
      DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    ASARFI BAI W/O SHRI GYANCHAND JAIN D/O
      LATE   SHRI   MUNNALAL   JAIN W/O SHRI
      GYANCHAND JAIN, R/O CHAIRAYA CHAPETI,
      NEAR DUSRI IMLI, ITAWAH U.P. (UTTAR
      PRADESH)
                                   2
5.    SHOBHA BAI D/O LATE SHRI MUNNALAL JAIN
      W/O SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN, R/O BAPU
      NAGAR, BHEED BHAJAN, BACK SIDE OF KABIN
      CHAMBER, HOUSE NO.431, FLAT NO.2062,
      AHMEDABAD (GUJRAT)

6.    MITHLESH DEVI D/O LATE SHRI MUNNALAL JAIN
      W/O SHRI PRAKASH JAIN, R/O BAPU NAGAR,
      BHEED BHANJAN, BACK SIDE OF KABIN
      CHAMBER, HOUSE NO.431, FLAT NO.2062,
      AHMEDABAD (GUJRAT)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.N. SETH - ADVOCATE)

      This appeal coming on for conciliation this day, the Bench passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

This first appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6.2.2015 passed by the Court of District Judge, Bhind in Civil Suit bearing No.2A/2014 whereby the respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs' suit was partially allowed and accordingly, a decree was passed in their favour.

The aforesaid civil suit was filed by the respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs for declaration of their 1/7th share in their ancestral property bearing house No.89, ward No.33 and house No.4, ward No.27, both situated at district Bhind along with injunction against the appellants and respondents No.4 to 5.

During pendency of the appeal, parties resolved their dispute amicably and filed compromise application in following terms:-

"3. That, the dispute with regard to house no.89 situated in old Ward no.31 and presently the Ward no.is 33 in Free Ganj Sadar Bazar length of the house is 24 feet 9 inch width 40 feet 6 inch, surrounding of which are:-

East - House of Vijay Kumar West - House of Ramesh Chand and Mahesh Chand North - House of Shah Phool Chand Vijay Kumar South - Sadar Bazar Road Aforesaid property has been compromised to be divided into four equal shares i.e. 1/4 goes to Heeraman Jain, 1/4 goes to Mahavir Prasad Jain, 1/4 goes to Subhash Chand Jain & 1/4 goes to the appellants i.e. Manoj Kumar, Manish Kumar and Romesh Kumar sons of Shri Champa Lal Jain.

4. That, another property for which the suit was filed is situated in Ward no.27 House no.4 surrounding of which are as under:-

East - House of Veerchand West - Jain Mandir North - House of Subhash Jain South - Government Road"

This property has been compromised to be given to the appellants with a further stipulation that they should not alienate the property and can only gift to the Jain Temple."

Therefore, the compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted.

The above compromise application along with their affidavits was sent to

the Principal Registrar of this Court vide orders 24.4.2023 and dated 1.5.2023 for verification, and the Principal Registrar of this Court has recorded the statements of the parties and vide reports dated 24.4.2023 and 1.5.2023 verified the same.

Compromise entered between the parties with regard to 1/4th share of respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs in house No.89 is acceptable, hence preliminary

decree is passed accordingly.

The appeal is partially allowed and decree passed by the Trial Court is modified to the extent that instead of 1/7th - 1/7th share in ancestral property bearing house No. 89, ward No.33 and house No.4, ward No.27, both situated at District Bhind, respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4th-1/4th share each in House No.89 only situated in ward No.33, Freeganj, Sadar Bazar, District Bhind (M.P.).

Since the appeal has been decided in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, therefore, the appellants shall be entitled for refund of the Court fee.

   (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)                        (M.P.S RAGHUVANSHI SR. )
            MEMBER                                        MEMBER
(alok)


              ALOK KUMAR
              2023.05.18
              12:37:42 +05'30'