KARNAIL SINGH Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs Jaswant Singh and Karnail Kaur laid a suit as against their own brothers seeking partition of two houses which were the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff Jaswant Singh was allotted 1/4th share in both the houses. The defendants took up the matter in the appeal as against the preliminary decree passed. They lost the first appeal. Same was the fate of the defendants in the second appeal preferred by them as against the preliminary decree. The plaintiff Jaswant Singh filed final decree application on 23.1.1999. The said application was dismissed as neither of the parties appeared before the trial Court.

(2.) IT is the admitted position of both the parties that a compromise was entered into between the parties as on 9.2.1999. The plaintiff Jaswant Singh thereafter filed a fresh final decree application on 3.5.2003 praying for division of his 1/4th share in respect of one house only. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff Jaswant Singh that a compromise was struck between the parties as regards the other house and, therefore, he has filed a fresh final decree application on 3.5.2003 claiming his division of 1/4th share in the other house. The same was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the compromise was in fact struck between the parties concerning both the houses which were the subject matter of the suit. The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court rejected such a plea set up by the defendants and based on the tenor of the compromise deed entered into between the parties, 1/4th share in the subject house was ordered to be divided as it was held that there was no compromise between the parties in respect of the house which is the subject matter of the dispute.

(3.) I find that there is no merit in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. While interpreting the tenor of a document the Court will have to first look into the letter and spirit of the document. Only when If there is any ambiguity in the document, the Court of course will have to sit in the arm chair of the parties concerned and interpret the document, having due regard to the facts and circumstances which contributed for the execution of the document.