Lad Devi vs Satish Kumar Bhambi

Appellants-defendants have preferred this appeal to challenge judgment and decree dated 16.02.2018, passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby learned trial Court, while decreeing the suit of respondent-plaintiff has declared sale-deed dated 31.01.2006 as null and void pertaining to Araji No.2737/1 & 2737/2, respectively ad measuring 5 biswa and 1 bigha 8 biswa and consequently cancelled the sale-deed. A further relief of perpetual injunction is also granted in favour of respondent-plaintiff, whereby defendants were restrained from interfering with the peaceful use of the aforesaid agricultural land.

At the threshold, when the matter came up before the Court on 15.03.2018, the appeal was admitted and it was ordered that status quo in relation to contentious property shall be maintained. During pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by applicants, viz., Suryapal & Ram Niwas, for being impleaded as party respondent. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Court on 19.12.2018. On the same day, it was also brought to the notice of the Court by learned counsel for the parties that respective parties to the litigation including newly added respondents, other than respondent Nos.2 to 6, who are proforma respondents, have entered into compromise and a written compromise in support thereof has also been placed on record. Considering the submissions of rival parties, the parties were directed to appear before Deputy Registrar (Judicial) for verification of the compromise. The parties with their respective counsels appeared before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on 19.12.2018, who, after recording its satisfaction about their identity and recitals of the compromise, verified the same.

In terms of the compromise, the judgment and decree, passed by learned trial Court, is set aside and it is hereby declared that sale-deed in question dated 31.01.2006 be treated as valid qua the purchasers.

The instant appeal is accordingly allowed and the compromise aforesaid be also treated as a part of this judgment.