GOMTI DEVI Vs. RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 14.12.2012. First appellate court by the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal of the defendant/respondent and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 28.9.2010 by which the suit filed by the appellant plaintiff was decreed for possession with respect to first floor property bearing no.891 in K.No. 311, situated at Mahawar Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Trial court had also passed a decree for damages at Rs.2000/- pm from 16.12.2000 and awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a on the amount of damages.

(2.) Before proceeding further, it needs to be mentioned that trial court by two judgments of the same date 28.9.2010 decided three suits. Two of the suits were suits filed by the appellant-plaintiff claiming rights under the agreement to sell dated 20.5.1999 executed by Sh. Sukhram (father of respondent/plaintiff) and also challenging the compromise decree dated 9.9.1999 whereby father Sh. Sukhram had given rights in the first floor of the property to respondent/plaintiff. This appeal arises from one suit of the appellant/plaintiff which was decreed by the judgment dated 28.9.2010. Third suit was a suit filed by the respondent against the appellant and her husband seeking the relief of claiming rights in the first floor of the property by virtue of the compromise/agreement decree dated 9.9.1999 entered into between the respondent and his father Sh. Sukhram. This compromise dated 9.9.1999 was a compromise effectively under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC whereby the first floor of the property was agreed by the father Sh. Sukhram to be owned by respondent herein. This third suit was dismissed in favour of the appellant herein and it was held that the appellant after paying valuable consideration under the agreement to sell dated 20.5.1999 had acquired rights in the entire property being H.No. 891 and that the subsequent compromise dated 9.9.1999 entered into in the judicial proceedings being the appeal filed by the respondent-Ram Prasad against the decree in favour of the father Sh. Sukhram with respect to the suit property. The third judgment passed dismissing the suit of the respondent has become final as the respondent has not challenged the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2010 whereby, the rights claimed by him in the first floor of the property by virtue of compromise dated 9.9.1999 entered into between the respondent/son/Ram Prasad with Sh. Sukhram/father, were denied to him.

(3.) For the purposes of disposal of this regular second appeal, the following substantial questions of law are framed:-