BHAG SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhag Singh and others, the appellants in this appeal, brought a suit for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in their possession in respect of the suit land measuring 92 Kanals 5 Marlas on the basis that they were in possession as exclusive owners and the respondents had no right, title or interest in that land who were trying to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly. The suit having been dismissed by the trial Court, they went in appeal, which was entrusted to Sh. M.M. Bhalla, Additional District Judge. Before that Court, a statement was made by Sardul Singh-respondent-2 for himself and on behalf of Mangal Singh and Chanan Singh respondents to the effect that the parties are co-sharers in the joint khata comprising of the suit land and they will get possession in due course by means of partition and not forcibly. Sh. R.K. Mehra, Advocate, who represented the appellants accepted this statement and made a statement to the effect that the appeal may be disposed of according to that statement. Acting on these statements, the learned Additional District Judge, allowed the appeal partly directing that the defendants would not dispossess the plaintiffs from the land forcibly. However, they could take possession by execution of partition proceedings.

(2.) In the present appeal, Sh. B.R. Mahajan, Ld. counsel for the appellants has urged that these statements could not be treated as compromise and could not form the basis of a decree by the appellate Court; that the compromise must be reduced into writing in the form of an instrument duly signed by the parties and mere recording of the statements of the parties in Court, even if they are signed by the parties and their counsel, is not a sufficient compliance of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC.

(3.) The matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Sumer v. Vijay Singh, 1990 97 PunLR 350 . The controversy between the parties was not with respect to possession of land, but also regarding ownership, as plaintiffs are claiming exclusive ownership of the disputed land. In this situation of the matter, the appeal could not be disposed of on the statement of one of the defendants who was also attorney for two of the other defendants and the counsel for the appellants.