RAMESH AND OTHERS Vs. KRISHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants no. 2 to 6 have filed this second appeal. Suit was filed by respondents no. 1 and 2/plaintiffs against respondent no. 3 as defendant no. 1 and against appellants as defendants no. 2 to 6 (not in same seriatim) for partition of 3 kanals 7 marlas land comprised of different khasra/killa numbers being non-agricultural land. The trial court partly decreed the suit and passed preliminary decree for partition of 1 kanal 4 marlas land comprised of killa nos. 26 (0-9), 28(0-9) and 5/9(0-6) holding both the parties to be having half share each therein whereas for the remaining land, plaintiffs were found to be in exclusive possession of 1 kanal 1 marlas land comprised of khasra nos. 272(0-10) and 257 (0-12) whereas defendants were found to be in exclusive possession of 1 kanal 2 marla land comprised of khasra nos. 262 (0-9) and 598 (0-12) and suit regarding the same was dismissed. Defendants preferred first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court. In first appeal, compromise was allegedly effected between the parties. According to compromise, appellants/defendants were held to be owners in possession of khasra nos. 257(0-12) and 272(0-10) total measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas whereas plaintiffs were held to be owners in possession of 1 kanal 1 marla land comprised of khasra nos. 262(0-9) and 598(0-12) and the remaining land measuring 1 kanal 4 marlas comprised of khasra nos. 26(0-9), 28(0-9) and 5/9(0-6) was to be partitioned, both parties having half share therein, and preliminary decree for partition thereof was to be passed. Learned lower appellate court disposed of the appeal accordingly in view of compromise. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 2 to 6 have filed this second appeal.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that according to Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC), a lawful compromise is required to be signed by the parties, but in the instant case, statement regarding the compromise recorded by the lower appellate court was signed by defendant no. 1 only and has not been signed by defendants no. 2 to 6/appellants herein and therefore, there is no valid compromise on behalf of the appellants herein. Counsel for the appellants has cited two judgments of this Court in Harbans Lal and another v. Pardip Kumar and others, 2008 149 PunLR 820 and Chand Kaur v. Raj Kaur (died) and others., 1996 114 PunLR 523 support his contention that compromise not signed by some of the parties is not lawful compromise.