(1.) This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dtd. 18/11/2019 and 29/11/2019 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) passed by the Executing Court, Jalandhar.
(2.) The facts of the case, as has come up during the arguments of the case, are that a property was left by the mother of the petitioner, Smt. Kamal Sondhi, who died on 24/5/1990 in-testate. There were four successors, who were entitled to inherit the same in equal shares. The petitioner happens to be one of them, who is the son of Smt. Kamal Sondhi. The other two sons are respondent Nos.2 and 3; and the fourth claimant was respondent No.1, Ram Parkash Sondhi, the husband of the deceased Smt. Kamal Sondhi. After the death of Kamal Sondhi, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit for possession by way of partition of the said property. The suit was decreed, vide judgment and decree dtd. 8/2/2011. However, the peculiar feature of this case is that the trial Court had not prepared any preliminary decree to determine the shares.
(3.) Instead, before the preliminary decree could be passed, the parties entered into an agreement dtd. 11/6/2001 and placed the same on record before the trial Court as Ex.P-3. That compromise mentioned specified shares and also the specific portions, which were to be given to the respective parties. The map showing the specific portions of the respective parties was also placed on record before the trial Court as Ex.P-4. Not only the parties had entered into compromise, the parties had even appeared before the trial Court and had made their respective statements before the trial Court on 30/6/2001; accepting and ratifying the compromise placed on record before the trial Court. Accordingly, the trial Court passed the final decree itself; by partitioning the property by meats and bounds; and ordering giving possession of the specific portions to the parties, as was mentioned in the compromise and as was depicted in the site plan attached to the said compromise.