Bakhshish Singh And ORS. v. Harbhajan Singh And ORS.

RSA No.1657 of 2007 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1657 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Order:07.11.2017 Bakshish Singh and others ..Appellants

Versus

Harbhajan Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. S.S.Sodhi, Advocate and Mr. Gagandeep S. Virk, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. G.S.Punia, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the respondents.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

Parties, who are family members, are unnecessarily fighting in the Courts.

Mehar Singh, was the common ancestor between the parties. Plaintiff Bakshish Singh has filed a suit against his brother and children of other brother. It is not in dispute that pursuant to a family settlemente, which is Ex.P17/A on the record, parties had settled their dispute. The compromise deed was recognized by a Civil Court decree dated 01.06.1987. The plaintiffs who are Bakshish Singh and his children have challenged the decree dated 01.06.1987 on the ground that it is a vague decree. He has also challenged decree dated 04.04.1989 on the ground that he was not party to the aforesaid decree and, therefore it will not be binding on him. However, both the Courts below have concurrently found that Naresh Kumar 2017.11.10 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

RSA No.1657 of 2007 (O&M) -2decree dated 01.06.1987 is a result of compromise between the parties. The compromise deed is duly signed by Bakshish Singh. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the decree dated 04.04.1989 results in setting aside or taking away whatever was given to the plaintiff Bakshish Singh pursuant to a decree dated 01.06.1987.

During the course of arguments, counsel for the parties agreed that the decree dated 01.06.1987 shall be given effect in its totality without any variation and therefore, the decree dated 04.04.1989 to which the plaintiff is not a party would not adversely effect the rights of the plaintiffs. With these observations, the Regular Second Appeal is disposed of in view of the consensus arrived at by the learned counsel for the parties.

NOTE:- All the miscellaneous applications shall stands disposed of in terms of the agreed order.

November 07, 2017 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Naresh Kumar 2017.11.10 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh