1 2025:CGHC:21534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 195 of 2014 1. Nohar Sahu S/o Ghondul Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Urla, P.S. Urla, Post- Urla, Tah. And Distt. Raipur C.G. Civil And Revenue District Raipur 2. Smt. Saarja Bai (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 01-05- 2025 ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Jagannath Sahu (Died) Through Lrs (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 15-04-2025) 1.1 - (A) Smt. Triveni Sahu W/o Late Jagannath Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Urla, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - (B) Seshnarayan Sahu S/o Late Jagannath Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Urla, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - (C) Omkar Sahu S/o Late Jagannath Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Urla, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - (D) Pitamber Sahu S/o Late Jagannath Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Urla, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Jagnu Ram Sahu S/o Kunj Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Vijay Nagar, Awanti Bihar, P.O. Telibandha, Tah. And Distt. Raipur C.G. 3. Ganga Bai D/o Kunj Lal Sahu Aged About 56 Years W/o Mant Ram Sahu, R/o Village Berla, P.O. Gudheli, P.S. Berla, Tah. And Distt. Durg 4. Dukalhin Bai D/o Kunj Lal Sahu Aged About 46 Years W/o Jageshwar Sahu, R/o Village Sarora Basti, Post- Urla, Tah. And Distt. Raipur 5. Tetki Bai (Died Through Lrs) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 01- 05-2025 MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.05.14 11:57:02 +0530 2 5.1 - Jawahar Lal Sahu S/o Late Arjun Prasad Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 3952, Near Bhramhdev Mandir, Shyama Prasad Mukkhajee Ward, Ward No. 67, Bhatagaon, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 6. Kekti Bai D/o Late Ghondul Aged About 56 Years W/o Firanta Ram Sahu, R/o Mahaveer Nagar, Mig-3/8, Behind Mining Office, Near Shiv Temple, Tah. And Distt. Raipur 7. Smt. Tara Bai D/o Late Ghondul Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Urla, Post- Urla, Tah. And Distt. Raipur C.G. 8. Kumari Duman Sahu D/o Late Ghondul Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Urla, Post- Urla, Tah. And Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Karunendra Narayan Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d), 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No. 7 and 8 : Mr. Chakresh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 09.05.2025 1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants No. 3 and 1 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2014 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 1A/2013, by which the lower appellate Court has partially modifying the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2013 passed by learned 4th Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 94A/07 and also dismissed the cross appeal filed by the defendant No. 3. 2. This appeal has been admitted by this Court on following substantial question of law: 3 “whether both the Courts below were justified in denying the appellants to lead secondary evidence to prove the will executed by Ghondul Sahu in favour of appellant No. 1 Nohar Sahu?” 3. During the pendency of this second appeal, a compromise has arrived between the parties on 08.11.2022, 16.11.2022 and 17.12.2022 and the relevant conditions are reproduced below:- “;g fd] izFke i{k us f}rh; i{k dh mifLFkfr esa Jherh Mqeu lkgw ,ao Hkwisanz VaMu ls 616666@& : ¼N% yk[k lksyg gtkj N% lkS fN;klB½ uxn izkIr fd;k gSA blh izdkj vU; fnol dks lgefr ls foØ; dh xbZ Hkwfe dh jkf’k esa ls 333000@& : ¼rhu yk[k rSrhl gtkj½ uxn o vU; frFkh dks Hkh 333000@& : ¼rhu yk[k rSrhl gtkj½ uxn izkIr fd;k gSA bl izdkj izFke i{k Jherh dsrdh ckbZ us dqy 12]82]666@& : ¼ckjg yk[k c;klh gtkj N% lkS fN;klB½ Jherh Mqeu lkgw ,oa Hkwisznz VaMu vkRet Jh cq/kjke VaMu ls izkIr dj pqdsa gSA ;g fd] izFke i{k us f}rh; i{k dh mifLFkfr esa Jherh Mqeu lkgw ,ao Hkwisanz VaMu ls 616666@& : ¼N% yk[k lksyg gtkj N% lkS fN;klB½ uxn izkIr fd;k gSA vU; frFkh dks Hkqxrku fd;s x; izfrQy dh jkf’k esa izFke i{k VsVdh ckbZ us 200000@& : uxn o 133000@& : pSd Øekad 024303 }kjk izkIr fd;kA vU; fnol dks lgefr ls foØ; dh xbZ Hkwfe izfrQy dh jkf’k esa tokgjyky lkgw us 133000@& : uxn o 200000@& : pSd Øekad 024313 }kjk izkIr fd;kA bl izdkj mHk; i{k dqy 1282666@& : ¼ckjg yk[k c;klh gtkj N% lkS fN;klB½ Jherh Mqeu lkgw ,oa Hkwisznz VaMu vkRet Jh cq/kjke VaMu ls izkIr dj pqdsa gSA ;g fd] izFke i{k us f}rh; i{k dh mifLFkfr esa Jherh Mqeu lkgw ,ao Hkwisanz VaMu ls 616666@& : ¼N% yk[k lksyg gtkj N% lkS fN;klB½ uxn izkIr fd;k gSA vU; frFkh dks Hkqxrku fd;s x; izfrQy dh jkf’k esa izFke i{k f=os.kh lkgq o iq= 'ks"kukjk;.k lkgq us 200000@& : uxn o 133000@& : pSd Øekad 024303 }kjk izkIr fd;kA vU; fnol dks lgefr ls foØ; dh xbZ Hkwfe izfrQy dh jkf’k esa txuqjke lkgw us 133000@& : uxn o 200000@& : pSd Øekad 024313 }kjk izkIr fd;k ,oa 17-12-2022 dks uxn 1]50]000@& :i;s o 1]83]000@& dk psd izkIr fd;k ¼psd Øekad 027517½A bl izdkj mHk; i{k dqy 1615666@& : ¼lksyg yk[k ianzg gtkj NS lkS NSalB½ Jherh Mqeu lkgw ,oa Hkwisznz VaMu vkRet Jh cq/kjke VaMu ls izkIr dj pqdsa gS vc ;g gS fd mDr of.kZr tehu dk laiw.kZ jde izkIr dj fy;s gS vc bl lkSns ls lacaf/kr dksbZ Hkh jde gesa izkIr djuk ckdh ugha gSA ckn fe;kn dksbZ Hkh jde dh ge ekax Øsrk ls djsaxs rks og utk;n o >wBk ekuk tk,xk rFkk gekjs }kjk fd;k x;k dksbZ Hkh izdkj gd nkok voS/k o 'kqU; ekuk tkosxkA” 4. Since the parties have already settled their dispute, therefore, an 4 application under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. was filed by the appellant and the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 6, wherein they have stated as under:- “3. In order to show their willingness that to enter in to compromise that other side has agreed and also executed a consent letter dated 05.06.2021 which form part of the present compromise and under that consent letter already obtained a sum of amount Rs. 18,00,000/- by way of cheque or in cash. Now after such execution the appellants will have all the rights to use, enjoy and even dispose off the suit property and right if any is being bandoned by respondents concerned.” 5. This Court vide order dated 15.04.2025, directed the appellants and the respondents to appear before the Additional Registrar(J) of this Court for recording their statements. In pursuance of that order, the parties have recorded their statements wherein the legal heirs of the respondent No. 1 Jagannath Sahu namely Smt. Triveni Sahu, Seshnarayan Sahu, Omkar Sahu and Pitamber Sahu have stated that in view of the compromise arrived between the parties on 08.11.2022, 16.11.2022 and 17.12.2022 and they have received the amount of Rs. 16,15,666/-, Dukalhin Bai has received the amount of Rs. 50,000/-, Jawahar Lal Sahu S/o Late Smt. Tetki Bai has received the amount of Rs. 12,82,666/- and Smt. Ketki Bai widow of Firanta Ram Sahu who was plaintiff No. 3 has received amount of Rs. 12,82,666/- and Smt. Tara Bai who is defendant No. 2 before the trial Court and respondent No. 7 has also acknowledged the execution of the said agreements in her evidence. 6. The appellant namely Nohar Sahu and the respondents namely Smt. Triveni Sahu, Seshnarayan Sahu, Omkar Prasad Sahu, Pitamber Sahu, Jagnu Ram Sahu, Smt. Dukalhin Bai, Jawaharlal 5 Sahu, Smt. Tara Bai, Duman Sahu have appeared before this Court and acknowledged the execution of the said agreements and the respondent No. 3 Smt. Ganga Bai due to paralysis and respondent No. 6 due to marriage in family have not appeared before this Court. 7. Thus, counsel for both the parties would submit that since the parties have settled their dispute and would pray for disposal of second appeal in terms of settlement arrived between the parties. 8. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this second appeal is disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties. 9. Accordingly, the second appeal is disposed of in terms of settlement arrived between the parties on 08.11.2022, 16.11.2022 and 17.12.2022 and the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2014 passed by the trial Court is modified as per the above stated terms of settlement and the settlement arrived between the parties will be part of the decree. 10. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish