IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SECOND APPEAL No.623 of 2017 ====================================================== 1. Sanjeev Kumar 2. Santosh Kumar 3. Mukesh Kumar All S/o Late Ram Ayodhya Sah, R/o Sitamarhi Bazar, Ward No.-7, P.S. and District- Sitamarhi. 4. Gayatri Devi, D/o Late Ram Ayodhya Sah, W/o Late Budhayan Sah, R/o Village and P.O. and P.S.- Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran. 5. Anita Devi, D/o Late Ram Ayodhya Sah, W/o Late Sadhu Saran Sah, R/o Village and P.O. and P.S.- Pusha, District- Samastipur. 6. Sumitra Devi, D/o Late Ram Ayodhya Sah, W/o Upendra Sah, R/o Village- Sangrampur, P.S.- Malangwa, District- Savlahi Nepal. ... ... Appellant/s Versus Raj Narayan Singh S/o Late Ram Khelawan Singh, R/o Mauja- Mehbaul, Naya Tola, Ward No.- 24, P.S. and District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Parth Gaurav, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 6 30-06-2025 Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2024 This interlocutory application has been filed jointly by the appellants as well as sole respondent on which all the appellants and the sole respondent have signed alongwith the affidavit of all the parties sworn separately. 2. Perused the interlocutory application. 3. It is stated that on the intervention of well wishers and local people good sense have prevailed between the parties and accordingly the dispute has been settled between the parties Patna High Court SA No.623 of 2017(6) dt.30-06-2025 2/3 and terms of compromise has also been settled as the appellants have paid Rs. 32 lakhs (Rs. 15 lakhs in cash and Rs. 17 lakhs through cheque) in total to the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that he has no claim whatsoever over the disputed land of the present second appeal arising out of Title Suit No. 139 of 2000 decided from the court of learned Subordinate Judge-I, Sitamarhi. 5. In view of the submissions made above as well as the terms of compromise set out in the compromise petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the parties have amicably settled their dispute by compromising on their own free will as per the terms enumerated in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the compromise petition. The parties shall not raise any claim against the compromise decree in the future. The terms of the compromise shall be final and binding upon them and their successor in interest. 6. In view of the above, the compromise petition ( Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2024) stands allowed. Second Appeal No. 623 of 2017 7. In view of the fact that Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2024 has been allowed by which parties have compromised the matter, this Second Appeal is disposed of in Patna High Court SA No.623 of 2017(6) dt.30-06-2025 3/3 terms of the compromise petition. 8. Office is directed to prepare the decree incorporating the compromise petition (Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2024) as a part of the decree. 9. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. prabhat/- (Khatim Reza, J) U