VED KAUR Vs. ANITA POONIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order shall dispose of three RSA Nos.1757, 2459 and 2460 of 2006 together.

(2.) One Mahender Singh was the owner of the property in question. He left behind three daughters and one son on 21.1.1983. Son was born to him on 10.4.1983 after his death. His widow Ved Kaur got a mutation of inheritance sanctioned in her name on 9.4.1985 on the basis of forged oral Will. A collusive suit was filed by her minor son Giri Raj titled as Giri Raj Vs. Smt.Ved Kaur, decreed on 21.3.1986 and became owner of 2/3rd share of the property whereas 1/3rd share was retained by Ved Kaur. On the basis of the said decree, a mutation was also sanctioned on 9.9.1986. Giri Raj defendant No.1, owner of 2/3rd share, sold land measuring 64 kanals on 25.8.1994 to Karan Singh son of Kanhaya Ram. Later on, Anita Punia and Renu Kumari daughters of Mahender Singh filed a suit for possession by way of succession on the basis of inheritance which was decreed by the trial court observing as under:

(3.) In RSA No.1757 of 2006, CM No.150-C of 2010 has been filed for permission to place on record documents (Annexures A-1 and A-2) and CM No.151-CI of 2010 has been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for passing appropriate judgment and decree in terms of the compromise dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure A-1) arrived at between the parties to the appeal. CM No.150-C of 2010 is allowed and Compromise deed (Annexures A-1 and A-2) is taken on record. Notice in the application bearing CM No.151-C of 2010 is issued. At this stage, Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate is appearing on behalf of contesting respondents along with Sh.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate appearing for proforma respondent. Sh.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate has submitted that he is not a party to the agreement and is only concerned with the protection of the sale deed Ex.P11 executed in his favour. Since it is a dispute between the family members of the deceased Mahinder Singh and if a compromise has been arrived at between them, then he has no objection if it does not effect his rights. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No1 and 2 (plaintiffs Anita Poonia and Renu Kumari) had submitted that the terms and conditions of the compromise are acceptable to him. According to the compromise, as orally stated by the counsel for the parties that the compromise has no effect on the rights of the subsequent purchaser, namely Karan Singh as it has been specifically provided in para 11 of the compromise that "the land already sold in favour of Karan singh son of Kanhaya vide sale deed dated 28.8.1993 by appellant Ved Kaur shall not be apportioned from the share of respondents Anita Poonia and Renu Kumari which has been settled as 30 kanals for each of them (60 kanals in total). The said Karan shall get his share from the land in the hands of appellants Ved Kaur, Giriraj, Neelima and Poonam.