Disposal of Second Appeal on Terms of Amicable Settlement and Voluntary Compromise Deed.

The Appellant, Shashikant Jaiswal, originally filed a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 08A/09) for declaration and possession regarding 3.57 acres of agricultural land in Village Khairwar, based on a will executed by the late Dauram.

The Trial Court (Civil Judge Class-I, Kawardha) dismissed the suit on August 13, 2009.

The Appellant’s first appeal (Civil Appeal No. 24A/2012) was subsequently dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kawardha, on June 28, 2012.

The Appellant then preferred this Second Appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a written settlement/compromise deed on November 27, 2020, to resolve the dispute amicably.

1. Whether the dispute between the parties regarding the 3.57 acres of land could be disposed of in terms of the compromise deed executed during the pendency of the Second Appeal.

The Court applied the principles governing the compromise of suits, primarily embodied in Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.

This rule allows a court to record a lawful agreement or compromise between parties and pass a decree in accordance therewith, provided the court is satisfied that the agreement is valid and voluntary.

The Court also acknowledged the principle of party autonomy in settling civil disputes through amicable mediation and written settlements.

The Court reviewed the joint submission made by the counsel for the parties and examined the compromise deed dated November 27, 2020.

Under the terms of the settlement, the disputed 3.57 acres were partitioned: 2.00 acres were allotted to Respondent No. 3 (Tirath Ram), and the remaining 1.57 acres were allotted to the Appellant (Shashikant Jaiswal).

Other respondents (Kawal Ram, Rikhi Ram, and others) relinquished their claims to the said property.

The Court satisfied itself that the settlement was reached voluntarily, without any coercion, or undue influence.

By reproducing the settlement verbatim in its judgment, the Court ensured the clarity of the reciprocal obligations of the parties.

The Court held that the compromise deed shall form part of the final decree and that the parties shall remain bound by its terms and conditions.

The Court ordered the drawing of a decree accordingly.