SMT. BHAGAN AND OTHERS Vs. HET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision petition by Smt. Bhagan and Parsa defendants against Het Ram plaintiff. It is directed against the order of Shri S.N. Parkash, Senior Sub -Judge with enhanced appellate powers Hissar, dated May 24, 1971 rejecting the appeal of the defendants from the order of Shri K.K. Aggarwal, Sub -Judge 1st Class, Sirsa dated April 8, 1970 recording compromise between the parties.

(2.) ON January 4, 1968, Smt. Bhagan defendant No. 1 executed mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff mortgaging with possession 178 Kanals of agricultural land situate in village Chilkani Dhab. The document was registered. On July 24, 1969, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was mortgagee in possession of the land mortgaged with him and that the entries in khasra girdawaries pertaining to the land in dispute showing possession of defendant No. 1 with effect from Rabi, 1968 were liable to correction with the further relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 was impleaded as a party on the ground of his interference with the possession of the plaintiff. On 14th November, 1969, written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. It was pleaded that in fact the possession of the land mortgaged had not been delivered to the plaintiff and remained with defendant No. 1 and that the plaintiff had agreed to take 1/3rd batai of the mortgaged land from defendant No. 1. The defendants admitted the execution of the mortgage deed. On 21st November, 1969, the following solitary issue was framed: -

(3.) THE above statement of the counsel for the defendants was followed by a statement made by the plaintiff and his counsel Shri N.N. Kapur. It was stated by them that the above statement of the counsel for the defendants had been read out to them, that in terms of that statement, the suit be decreed and that the parties would bear their respective costs. On that date, the trial court passed the order in terms of the statements of the parties. As a result of the compromise between the parties, the suit was decreed and a consent decree in terms thereof was drawn up.