RANG LAL Vs. BHAGWANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby appeal filed by the defendant-respondent against the decree of the trial court has been accepted and suit of the plaintiff-appellant for setting aside the decree dated 16.08.1999 in favour of the defendant-respondent has been dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for setting aside the civil court decree dated 16.08.1999 passed by Mr.Virender Malik, Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.)Hisar, in civil suit titled as 'Hazuri Lal vs.Rang Lal' being illegal and declaring him to be owner in possession of the suit land averring that he was the owner in possession of suit land on the basis of a civil court decree bearing No.716 dated 19.09.1986. It was further alleged that defendant No.1 (predecessor-in-interest of respondents) filed Civil Suit No.19-C against the appellant on 16.11.1996 claiming that he was owner in possession of land measuring 2 acres as per family settlement dated 11.09.1988. In that civil suit, ad interim stay was granted to the defendant-respondent No.1 vide order dated 11.12.1996. Appellant filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which came up before the Lower Appellate Court on 08.04.1997 where he gave a statement that the matter was compromised to give land measuring 312/10/2(3-2)11(6-18) situated at village Barwala and the respondent would have no claim with the remaining suit property. On the basis of the aforesaid compromise, a decree dated 16.08.1999 was passed by the Court of Mr.Virender Malik, the then Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.) incorporating the aforesaid compromise dated 08.04.1997 in the decree.

(3.) AGGRIEVED from the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 24.02.2007, defendant No.1(predecessor-in-interest of respondents) filed an appeal which was accepted by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.01.2010. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that the Lower Appellate court has erred at law while treating the decree dated 16.08.1999 as a compromise decree as there was no compromise between the parties as is evident from the record of the trial Court and in fact no compromise took place between the parties and none was placed on record nor any statement to the effect was made in the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that since the decree dated 16.08.1999 was not passed on the basis of a compromise, suit to challenge the same was maintainable and the bar of Order 23 Rule 3 A CPC was not attracted.