SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.2.1995 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, dis -allowing an application preferred by the present defendant -petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the present respondents filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the predecessor - in -interest of the present defendant -petitioners. The case of the plaintiffs as pleaded, had been that they purchased land comprised in Khasra Nos.2171/l, 2171/l/l//1, 2172, 2173/l, 2957/2173/l/l measuring 178.13 sq. mtrs. from the defendant vide registered sale deed executed on 23.12.1987 and with regard to the sale deed, the defendant filed civil suit for declaration and injunction, which suit was compromised between the parties. It was also pleaded that as per the compromise, the plaintiffs left some part of khasra Nos.2957/2173/1/1 and 2173/1 measuring 8 -0.3 sq. meters, in favour of defendant Sant Singh which was situated at the back - side of the road and the defendant Sant Singh, out of his own land, i.e. some part of Khasra No.2171/2 and Khasra No.2171/1/2 measuring 3.60 sq. mtrs. left in favour of the plaintiffs and this land was situated in front of the road side and according to plaintiff, as per this compromise, the length of the front was 7.80 C.meters. The compromise deed and tatima filed therewith have been annexed with the plaint. It was further pleaded that on the basis of the compromise Ex. P -l and tatima Ex.P -2, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, as per plaintiffs they raised pillars on the front side on Khasra No.2171/1 by leaving 90 C. meters land (front) in Khasra No.2171/1 towards the land of the defendant and 90 C. meters land was kept vacant for the construction of the stairs, but the defendant was interfering unnecessarily in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and preventing them to raise stairs on khasra No.2171/1/1 and 2171/1 and was further threatening to dis -possess plaintiff from the above mentioned land by raising a structure over it, for which some material had been collected at the spot. According to plaintiff, defendant was not having any right, title and interest over the suit land, but inspite of requests, he was ought to raise construction and encroach upon the land of the plaintiff. Hence the suit for injunction was filed.

(3.) Shri Sant Singh, deceased defendant, has contested the suit by filing written -statement. Various legal pleas were raised, but on merit, it was pleaded and admitted that the earlier suit was compromised between the parties and some modification was made in the registered sale deed and according to compromise deed, the defendant also agreed to transfer 173.70 sq. meters of land in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiffs used to interfere with the rest of the portion and wanted to grab more land under the garb of the compromise deed, therefore, a false and fictitious suit was filed. Again, the deceased defendant admitted that the judgment and decree were passed in the previous suit on the basis of compromise. According to defendant, the remedy available to the plaintiff was for partition. It was further pleaded that in - fact the plaintiffs have covered their portion according to compromise deed and they have not left any vacant portion of their share and in -fact they have completed their front portion of the house. The defendant denied to be interfering in plaintiffs possession.