Bharat Kumar vs Lrs Of Rampratap ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9025 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:37506]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 75/2021

Shyam Bai D/o Ram Pratap, Aged About 50 Years, Chhoti Sadri, Presently Resident Of Arnoda, Tehsil Nimbaheda Dis. Rajsamand

----Appellant Versus

1. Kailashi Bai D/o Ram Pratap Ratidar, Chhoti Sadri, Presently At Buda Tehsil Malhargarh, Dis. Mandsore (Mp)

2. Bharat Kumar S/o Ram Pratap, Chhoti Sadri, Presently Residing At Buda, Tehsil Malhargarh, Dis. Mandsaur (Mp)

3. Nirmala Devi D/o Ananda Choudhary, Chhoti Sadri, Presently Residing At Buda, Tehsil Malhargarh, Dis. Mandsaur (Mp)

4. Bhagatram S/o Gulabchand Patidar, Chhoti Sadri Pratapgarh

5. Tehsildar, Tehsil Chhoti Sadri, Pratapgarh

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 7/2021 Nirmaladevi W/o Late Rampratap, Aged About 58 Years, Sinore Jalgaon, Maharashtra At Present Chotti Sadri District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. Shyamabai D/o Rampratap, Age Major, R/o Choti Sadri, Pratapgarh At Present Arnod Tehsil Nimbahera District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

2. Kailashibai D/o Rampratap W/o Keshuram, Age Major, R/o Chottisadri District Pratapgarh At Present Budha Tehsil Malhargad District Mandsaur, M.p.

3. Bharatkumar S/o Adopted S/o Rampratap Patidar, Age Major, R/o Chotti Sadri District Pratapgarh At Present Budha Tehsil Malhargad District Mandsaur, M.p.

4. Bhagatram S/o Gulabchand Patidar, Age Major, R/o Choti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

5. Tehsildar, Choti Sadri District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

[2023:RJ-JD:37506] (2 of 4) [CFA-75/2021]

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 82/2021 Bharat Kumar S/o Rampratap, Aged About 43 Years, Chotti Sadari At Present Buda Tehsil Malhargarh Dis. Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh)

----Appellant Versus

1. Rampratap, Buda, Tehsil Malhargarh, Dis. Mandsaur (Deceased) Legal representatives of Late Rampratap: 1/1. Kailashi Bai D/o Rampratap, Buda, Tehsil Malhargarh, Dis.

Mandsaur (Mp) 1/2. Shyama Bai D/o Rampratap, Buda, Tehsil Malhargarh, Dis.

Mandsaur (Mp)

2. Geeta Devi W/o Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Chotti Sadari Dis. Pratapgarh

3. Sourabh S/o Nandkishore, Chotti Sadari Dis. Pratapgarh

4. Tehsildar, Chottisadari, Dis. Pratapgarh

5. Nirmala Devi D/o Aanda Choudhary, Chotti Sadari, Dis.

         Pratapgarh
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Hemant Dutt
                                   Ms. Laxi Devi
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Rajat Dave



               HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                    Judgment

03/11/2023

1. In all the present appeals, respective applications on behalf

of the appellants have been filed with the submission that the

parties have entered into an amicable settlement and hence, the

present appeals be disposed of in light of the compromise. The

compromise deed as entered into between the parties has also

been placed on record.

[2023:RJ-JD:37506] (3 of 4) [CFA-75/2021]

2. Vide order dated 31.05.2023, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial)

of this Court was directed to verify the compromise as well as the

parties to the compromise. The compromise so verified at the

inception was not taken on record by this Court as the veracity of

the same was doubtful. Hence, the same was directed to be

placed in part D of the record.

3. However, subsequently, again an application along with the

compromise deed was filed with the submission that all the parties

have entered into an amicable settlement and hence, the appeals

be disposed of in light of the said compromise.

In view of the same, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) vide

order dated 16.10.2023, was directed to verify the parties as well

as the contents of the compromise.

4. The verification as made by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial)

reflected that all the parties except respondent No.2, who was a

signatory to the compromise deed but was not present before

him, were verified.

However, as respondent No.2 was not present before the

Deputy Registrar (Judicial) for verification, the counsel appearing

for her prayed for time to move an appropriate application

supported with affidavit while making a submission that she is

totally bedridden and is unable to appear but she is agreeable to

the terms of the compromise.

5. Now, an application on behalf of respondent No.2 Smt. Geeta

Devi has been filed wherein it has been submitted that due to the

ailment, she is not able to appear physically for verification of the

compromise but she is agreeable to the conditions of the

[2023:RJ-JD:37506] (4 of 4) [CFA-75/2021]

compromise and that she has signed the compromise deed out of

her free will.

The medical prescription slip is also annexed with the said

application which is supported by an affidavit.

6. In view of the above facts and in view of the compromise as

entered into between the parties, the present appeals are

disposed of in terms of the compromise dated 21.09.2023. The

said compromise deed shall form a part of the present order.

7. Stay petitions and all pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J

79-81/KashishS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)