GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. TEJA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -respondent Teja Singh filed a suit seeking possession by specific performance of agreement dated 3.6.1986 regarding mortgage of land measuring 8 Kanals as detailed in the plaint situated in the area of Village Saidoke. The suit was dismissed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Moga vide his judgment and decree dated 26.7.1991. In appeal the learned District Judge, Faridkot vide his judgment and decree dated 29.4.1993 partly accepted the appeal and the plaintiff's suit was decreed through out for a sum of Rs. 16,320/ - i.e. Rs. 12,000/ - as principal amount and Rs. 4,320/ - as interest calculated @ 1% per mensem with effect from the date of agreement till the date of suit. Besides, interest pendente lite from the date of suit till the date of decree @ 9% per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization of the same on the sum of Rs. 12,000/ -. The defendant aggrieved against the decree of the learned District Judge, Faridkot has filed the present RSA which was admitted on 28.2.1994. On 2.1.1995 execution of the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1993 was stayed subject to the appellant's giving bank guarantee of the decretal amount before the executing Court.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, CM No. 417 -C of 2008 has been filed for disposing of the appeal and the suit in terms of the compromise. The appellant Gurcharan Singh is present in Court and is identified by his counsel Shri Vivek Goyal, Advocate. Baldev Singh son and power of attorney of Teja Singh -respondent is also present in Court and is identified by his counsel Shri S.K. Singla, Advocate. A photostat copy of the power of attorney executed by Teja Singh in favour of Baldev Singh, his son has been placed on record.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties are agreed that the suit may be disposed of in terms of the compromise. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have compromised and which, in the opinion of the Court, is reasonable and bona fide, there is no reason not to accept the same. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are modified and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of the compromise to the extent of Rs. 15,000/ - in lump -sum. The parties shall bear their own costs and neither party shall have any other claim against the other in the context of the agreement dated 3.6.1986. The bank guarantee that was ordered to be furnished in terms of the order dated 12.1.1995 passed by this Court shall be released in favour of the appellant.