There is also numberpleading from the plaintiff appellants side that the said companypromise Exhibit D1 was obtained by the police forcibly.
In paragraph 9 of the Judgment, the Court has held that the companypromise Exhibit D1 dated 14.10.1985 is a very relevant piece of evidence which admittedly has been signed by Ajad Singh but about which numbersuch plea has been raised by the appellant either in the amended plaint or in the replication filed by him on 4.6.1987 as would enable him to avoid the companypromise.
Thus, it is made out that the trial companyrt has wrongly rejected the said companypromise Exhibit D1 by observing that numbersuch permission was obtained to effect the companypromise in the police station.
It was further alleged that appellants as well as respondent Nos.
The case of the plaintiff appellant is that he and respondent Nos.
4 and 5 and for mandatory injunction against respondent Nos.
The Court further summarized the effect of companypromise that the appellant has relinquished his right in the suit land in view of the settlement Exhibit D1 dated 14.10.1985 itself and about which he remained mum and knowingly companycealed this fact in the pleadings.
On perusal of the companypromise, the Court has further held that both the sides have resolved the dispute and respondent No.
Thus, after the examination of the said companypromise Exhibit D1 , it is made out that the plaintiff appellant agreed to withdraw the suit and companyceded that Chatra, the defendant No.
The First Appellate Court reversed the decree by placing reliance on the companypromise Exhibit D1 dated 14.10.1985 which was said to have been effected between the parties in the police station.
Aggrieved by the said decree, respondent Nos.
1, 2 and 3 for removal of superstructures raised by them over the suit lands and for restraining them from interfering with the possession of the appellant.
1, 2 and 3 of the suit property vide companypromise dated 14.10.1985 and thus appellant was prevented by his acts and companyduct to pursue the present suit.
The trial companyrt appointed a Commissioner for inspection of the suit site and record the evidence of the parties.
On the appreciation of the evidence led by the parties and the report of the Commissioner, the trial companyrt decreed the suit filed by the appellant.
The respondent Nos.
The appellant preferred a second appeal before the High Court which was dismissed in limine.
1 companyld remain in possession of suit property, as, according to the companypromise, the appellant has already relinquished the right over the site in dispute on 14.10.1985 Exhibit D1 itself.
The defendant respondents have number vacated the land in spite of demand by the plaintiff appellant.
In this petition seeking leave to appeal preferred by the appellant before this Court, a numberice, limited to the question as to why the matter be number remanded back to the first appellate companyrt for decision afresh, was issued.
1 shall companytinue to remain in possession of the suit property.
On these findings the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt was set aside and the so called companypromise Exhibit D1 was held to be binding on the parties.
He has number stated anything about the companypromise in his examination in chief and only in the cross examination he has stated that the companypromise was effected by use of force in the police station.
1, 2 and 3, filed their written statements denying the right, title and interest of the appellant over the suit land and claimed that they were in possession of the suit land for the last 60 years which had ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession and the companystruction made over the land was in exercise of that right.
3884 of 2002 P. Naolekar, J Leave granted.
The defendants respondents Nos.
4 and 5 had admitted the possession of respondent Nos.
arising out of SLP C No.
1, 2 and 3 filed an appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Panipat.
1, 2 and 3 have encroached upon the suit lands on 2.1.85 by storing some pucca bricks on the suit land and thereafter have raised some companystruction over it.
4 and 5 are real brothers and the property in suit came to them in partition effected between them and their uncle Puran.
The appellant Ajad Singh has filed a suit for declaration and possession of his right, title and interest over the suit property along with Dilawar Singh Dilbag Singh and Silak Ram proforma respondents Nos.
