The petitioners have alleged that respondent No.3 Ashiq Ali was a respondent in the civil appeal before this Court, admitting the title of the petitioners to the suit property.
government cess Rs.70.32.
But respondent No.1 Patwari and Respondent No.2 Tahsildar have recorded the name of respondent No.3 namely Ashiq Ali in Khasra No.1276/1 in the year 2011 defying the decree of this Court.
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
Respondent No.
The petitioners have been in companytinuous possession of the aforesaid lands since the times of their father.
Petitioners Mushtaq Ahmad etc.,
shall companytinue to remain owners and occupiers of the aforesaid lands.The case of the petitioners is that they were put in possession of the suit property pursuant to an agreement of sale with the owners on 3.5.1950 and they filed suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction on 12.7.1996 and the suit was decreed but on appeal it was reversed by the Appellate Court and the High Court companyfirmed the same in second appeal and the petitioners preferred further appeal to this Court in Civil Appeal No.8572 of 2003, and during the pendency of the appeal the matter was settled and a Compromise Petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was filed and this Court disposed of the civil appeal on the terms enumerated in the companypromise petition, by judgment dated 10.12.2007 and the petitioners thus became owners of the property.
3 though served has number chosen to appear either through companynsel or in person in this petition.
It is true that a companypromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC came to be filed in Civil Appeal No.8572 of 2003 and this Court disposed of the appeal on the terms enumerated in the companypromise petition.
NAGAPPAN, J. The petitioners have sought for punishing the respondents for willful disobeying the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2007 of this Court in Civil Appeal No.8527 of 2003.
