Rajasthan High Court
Ram Kishore Meharwal vs Manoj Kumar Sharma on 7 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 572/2012
Ram Kishore Meharwal S/o Shri Narain, aged about 60 years, r/o
House No.395-A, Gayatri Nagar, Maharani Farm, Durgapura,
Jaipur
----Appellant/Defendant
Versus
Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Bhagirath Prasad Sharma, aged
about 41 years, r/o Housing No.47, Aayuvan Singh Nagar,
Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur
----Respondent/Plaintiff
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Aditya Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
07/03/2022
This first appeal was filed by the appellant-defendant against
the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2012 passed by Additional
District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in civil suit
No.90/2007 whereby and whereunder the civil suit for specific
performance filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed and the
appellant-defendant was directed to execute the sale deed
pursuant to the agreement to sale dated 02.09.2005 for the
property other than mentioned in the sale deed dated 18.02.2006.
During pendency of appeal, both parties have entered into a
compromise on the following terms:-
"i) That the Respondent Manoj Kumar has executed a
registered sale deed dated 25.02.2022 in favour of
the appellant/Ram Kishore Meharwal in respect of
Land/plot measuring 103.12 Sq.Mt. And absment
(2 of 3) [CFA-572/2012]
constructed area 162.52 Sq.Mt. which was appellant
sold to respondent through sale deed dated
18.02.2006.
ii) That now as such the aforesaid registry has been
executed hence the appellant does not want to press
the appeal as the compromise has taken place in
respect of the Disputed plot and agreement.
iii) That both the parties agrees that now no dispute
remains between them and the judgment and decree
dated 13.07.2012 passed by the court stands
modified in terms of the compromise.
iv) That both the parties agree that now the dispute
between the parties has been mutually resolved to the
extent that the agreement dated 02.09.2005 on the
basis of suit for specific performance of contract
instituted by plantiff respondent now stands cancelled
and in consequence to that judgment and decree
dated 13.07.2012 stands automatically becomes
inexecutable. As such on account of compromise
taken place between the parties. The judgment and
decree dated 13.07.2012 be deemed to be settled
between the parties and defendant/appellant in the
spirit of lok adalat withdraw the appeal as not
pressed.
v) That parties shall bear their own cost."
The aforesaid terms of compromise have been duly signed
by both parties incorporated in the application (I.A. NO.2/2022)
filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, which is duly supported by the
respective affidavits of both parties.
Learned counsel for respective parties has verified the
signatures of both parties, who are present in person.
As per terms of compromise, the impugned judgment and
decree dated 13.07.2012 does not sustain as in lieu of specific
performance of the agreement dated 02.09.2005, the appellant
(3 of 3) [CFA-572/2012]
has sold his other properties to the respondent as mentioned
hereinabove.
Learned counsel for both parties submits that the impugned
decree be quashed/modified in terms of the compromise.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree dated
13.07.2012 is set aside in terms of the compromise and the first
appeal stands disposed of in terms of compromise.
Another application (I.A. No.1/2022) has been filed by
respondent-plaintiff seeking return of his original title deeds i.e.
registered sale deed dated 18.02.2006 alongwith site map. It has
been submitted that the original title deeds were produced in
evidence before the trial court as (Exhibit-2) and (Exhibit-2/1)
since the suit has finally been decided the first appeal has also
been disposed of in terms of compromise, the original title deeds
of respondent be ordered to be returned.
Learned counsel for appellant has no objection, if the original
title deeds are returned to the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for both parties.
Since this appeal has been decided, therefore the application
is also disposed of in the manner that the trial Court shall return
the original title deeds i.e. registered sale deed alongwith exhibits
to the respondent-plaintiff on furnishing the certified copy of the
documents on record.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
Any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
TN/75
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
