Ramdhari Singh And ORS v. Ram Sharan Singh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

First Appeal No.302 of 1976 ====================================================== Ramdhari Singh & Ors .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Ram Sharan Singh & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Devi Pd. Sharma Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhusudan Singh Mr. Sultan Muzzaffter Mr. Kailash Bihari Singh Mr. Sidheshwar Pd.Singh Mr. Kaushlendra Kr.Singh Mr. Dinesh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 13-09-2017 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh for the appellant and the learned counsel, Mr. Dinesh Prasad Singh for the respondent.

Perused the office note dated 12.09.2017.

Interlocutory application No.5679 of 2000 has been filed by the parties compromising the disputes between them. This First Appeal arises out of partition suit and the parties have resolved their dispute and have filed the compromise application wherein the separate schedules have been prepared showing the allotment of properties in the share of each of the parties. The objection raised by the office is that appellant No.3 has not signed the compromise application. However, from perusal of the compromise application at page 17, it appears that the first signature is the signature of appellant, Bindo

Patna High Court FA No.302 of 1976 (59) dt.13-09-2017 2/2 Singh. The office has next pointed out the defect that the appellant No.1 has not singed the compromise application. At paragraph 5 of the compromise application, it is stated the appellant No.1 has died and in his place legal representatives of the appellant No.1 have signed the compromise application who are already on record. From perusal of the memo of appeal also, it appears that appellant No.2, 3 are the sons of appellant No.1. Thus the defect pointed out by the office are hereby ignored.

Since the parties have compromised their dispute and the compromise application has been filed and there is no impediment in the way of recording the compromise between the parties, the compromise application is accepted. Since property has already been allotted by preparing schedules in the name of separate branches, no further proceeding is required to be taken by the parties for recovery of possession as according to the learned counsels for both the parties the parties have come in possession of their respective cases. In the result, this First Appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise. The compromise application shall form part of the final decree.

Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) U T