LAWS(SC)-2022-8-11

S. KULDEEP SINGH Vs. S. PRITHPAL SINGH

Decided On August 02, 2022
S. Kuldeep Singh Appellant
V/S
S. Prithpal Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the judgment and order dtd. 28/10/2009 in LPA No.174/2008 where under the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar upheld the decree in favour of the respondent-plaintiff rendered on 31/7/2003 by the learned District Judge, Anantnag. The suit was filed seeking declaration and possession in respect of the land measuring 11 Kanals and 15 marlas falling within the survey nos.1829 and 1838 situated at Ranbirpora, Anantnag. The appellants are the natural son and daughter of late S. Sucha Singh whereas the respondent/plaintiff S. Prithpal Singh claimed to be the adopted son of Sucha Singh.

(2.) In the suit, Prithpal Singh as the plaintiff claimed that he received gifts of land in his favour from Sucha Singh. But although the suit schedule properties were more, the plaintiff confined his relief to the land measuring 11 kanals and 15 marlas mentioned above and not any other lands of his adoptive father Sucha Singh. In the plaint, Prithpal Singh enclosed certified copy of a compromise deed in between himself and one Abdul Jalil Khan and the claim of the plaintiff centers around the said compromise deed dtd. 18/12/1975. The terms of the compromise being relevant are extracted hereinbelow:

(3.) As can be seen Sardar Sucha Singh appended his thumb impression to the above compromise deed with the expression "I also accept the compromise". The Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag ("D.C" for short) thereafter passed an order on 24/12/1975 on the File No.168/06 recording the presence of both parties and the settlement made amongst them whereunder the tenant Abdul Jalil Khan gave up his tenancy rights over certain parcels of land and for the earlier noted 11 kanals and 15 marlas including the trees situated on the said parcel at village Ranbirpora, the respondent was accepted to be the owner by the tenant. Consequential directions were accordingly issued by the D.C for entering the compromise in the revenue records and as such the order dtd. 24/8/1974 by the Circle Officer regarding correction of tenancy was disposed of in light of the compromise amongst both parties.