Rajasthan High Court
Mohan Lal vs Bodu Ram on 17 November, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.107/1995
Mohan Lal son of Shri Mool Chand @ Mula, resident of Ward
No.15 Sikar (Rajasthan) (since deceased) through legal heirs:
1/1 Nathmal Kumawat son of Late Shri Mohan Lal, resident of
Ward No.15 Old, Sikar (Rajasthan).
1/2 Ramswaroop son of Late Shri Mohanlal resident of Ward
No.15 PLD, Sikar (Rajasthan)
----Defendant-Appellant
Versus
1. Boduram son of Shri Mool Chand @ Mula, resident of Minakshi
Road, Ward No.7 Sikar (since deceased) through legal heirs:
1/1 Kishanlal son of Late Shri Boduram
1/2 Girdharilal son of Late Shri Boduram
Both 1/1 & 1/2 are residents of behind Nehru Park, Ward No.14,
District-Sikar (Rajasthan).
----Plaintiff-Respondent
2. Mangi Lal (deceased) s/o Mool Chand @ Mula, resident of
Sikar represented by his LRs.
2/1 Nanagram S/o Late Shri Mangilal (since deceased) through
its legal heirs:-
2/1/1 Pushpa Devi wife of Late Shri Nanagram
2/1/2 Sanjay Kumar son of Late Shri Nanagram
2/1/3 Mukesh son of Late Shri Nanagram
2/1/4 Anil son of Late Shri Nanagram
2/1/5 Jitendra son of Late Shri Nanagram
2/1/6 Sunita Devi D/o Late Shri Nanagram
All (2/1/1) to (2/1/5) are at present residing at Minakshi Road
Sikar, whereas respondent No.2/1/6 is residing at Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur.
2/2 Narainram son of Late Shri Mangilal
2/3 Shankar Lal son of Late Shri Mangilal
2/4 Deendayal son of Late Shri Mangilal
2/5 Mst. Kaushalya D/o Late Shri Mangilal
2/6 Mst. Gyarsi D/o Late Shri Mangilal
2/7 Smt. Ramchandri widow of Late Shri Mangilal (since
deceased).
All resident of Minakshi Road, Ward No.15, Sikar (Raj.)
3. Nagar Parishad, Sikar through its Chairman, District Sikar.
...Defendants/Proforma respondents.
(2 of 3) [CFA-107/1995]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta for LRs of N.P. No.2
Ms. Heemanshi Meena for LRs of N.P.
No.1
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
17/11/2022
1. Appellant-defendant has filed this first appeal assailing the
judgment and decree dated 22.04.1995 passed by Additional
District Judge, Sikar in Civil Suit No.5/1995 (Old No.15/1989)
whereby and whereunder the suit for partition was decreed.
2. An application No.1/2022 has been filed under Order 23 Rule
3 read with Section 151 CPC stating inter alia that surviving legal
representatives of parties to the present lis have entered into
compromise and the terms of compromise have been reduced in
writing by way of compromise deed dated 11.03.2022. The
compromise deed dated 11.03.2022, duly signed by the parties
concerned, has been placed on record and it has been prayed that
the same may be taken on record and the first appeal be disposed
of in terms of compromise.
3. Another application No.1/2020 has been filed under Order 22
Rule 3 CPC seeking substitution of legal representatives stating
inter alia that the sole appellant-Mohal Lal has passed away on
7.9.2019 and his legal representatives named in the application be
substituted in his place. Death certificate has been enclosed with
the application.
Since there is some delay in filing the application, therefore
an application No.2/2020 under Section 5 of the limitation Act and
application No.3/2020 under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC for setting aside
the abatement of the appeal, have also been filed.
(3 of 3) [CFA-107/1995]
Taking into consideration, the nature of dispute in respect of
partition and that the parties have entered into compromise, the
applications No.1/2020, 2/2020 and 3/2020 are allowed. The
delay is condoned. Legal representatives of deceased-appellant
named in the application are substituted in his place.
4. One other application No.2/2022 has been filed stating inter
alia that respondent No.2/7 Smt. Ramchandri has passed away on
24.11.2009 and her legal representatives are already on record as
respondent No.2/1 (2/1/1 to 2/1/6) to 2/6. Hence, the factum of
death may be taken on record and her name may be deleted and
in the cause title, against her name the word "since deceased" be
inserted. For such reasons, application No.2/2022 is allowed.
Amended cause title filed by the appellant is taken on record.
5. Since the learned counsel for both parties have jointly
submitted that parties have settled their dispute of partition in
terms of compromise and are agreeable to abide by the
compromise, therefore, the application No.1/2022 filed under
Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is allowed and compromise dated 11.03.2022
is taken on record.
6. This first appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise deed
dated 11.3.2022 which shall form part of this order. The impugned
decree dated 22.4.1995 stands modified accordingly.
Decree be framed accordingly.
8. Any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
TN/40
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
