Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - (1.) This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal and also RSA No. 178 of 2015, arising out of the same judgment and decree. While this appeal has been preferred by defendant No. 7, Him Kailash Power Project Limited in the trial Court, the connected one by Smt. Bunda, defendant No. 1. The trial Court has decreed the suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 7 (plaintiffs in the trial Court) and they have been declared owner in possession of the land entered in Khata/Khatoni No. 102/169, bearing Khasra Nos. 192, 199, 200, 1375/205 Kita- 4 measuring 20-03-00 bighas situate in Mohal Paddar, Pargana Saho, Tehsil and District Chamba. The Jamabandi Ext. P-H reveals that the land measuring 5 biswas out of Khasra No. 1375/205 was sold by Sobhia, plaintiff-respondent No. 7 and 0-1-10 biswas by Devinder Kumar, respondent No. 12-defendant. The land sold from Khasra No. 1373/205 is, therefore, 6 biswas 10 biswansi. Since the entries qua the suit land were in the name of defendants Nos. 1 to 6, (respondents No. 8 to 16 in this appeal), therefore, the respondents No. 1 to 7 and plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration that such entries are wrong and illegal. The suit has been decreed by learned trial Court. Learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and decree.
(2.) Defendant No. 7-Company and defendant No. 1 are in second appeal before this Court. They have assailed the judgment and decree on several grounds, however, mainly that appellant-defendant No. 7 is a bonafide purchaser and as such, entries qua the suit land has rightly been reflected in its name in the revenue record and defendant No. 1 Smt. Bunda has also assailed the impugned judgment and decree on the grounds inter-alia that she is one of the co-owner in possession of the suit land.
(3.) Defendants No. 9 to 16 have not opted for putting appearance in both the appeals despite their service, may be that they have received the sale consideration from the appellant-Company and not left with any interest in the suit property. The plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 7-Company have, however, arrived at an amicable settlement during the course of proceedings having taken place before learned Mediator. Now, plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 7 have abandoned all their claims and rights in the suit land in lieu of Rs. 7,50,000/- agreed to be paid to them by the appellant-Company. The payment has been made to them in the Court through cheques in the following manner: (i) Rs. 2,50,000/- to respondent No. 1 Dharmu through cheque No. 265470 dated 3rd May, 2016. (ii) Rs. 2,50,000/- to respondent No. 7 Sobhia through cheque No. 265474 dated 3rd May, 2016. (iii) Rs. 1,50,000/- to respondent No. 2 Smt. Sukho i.e. Rs. 50,000/- to her and Rs. 50,000/- each to her sons Desh Raj and Maan Chand, respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively through cheque No. 265471 dated 3rd May, 2016. (iv) Rs. 50,000/- to respondent No. 5 Smt. Babli through cheque No. 265472 dated 3rd May, 2016. (v) Rs. 50,000/- to respondent No. 6 Smt. Rajni through cheque No. 265473 dated 3rd May, 2016.;