The original plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and specific performance, which was initially dismissed by the Trial Court but later decreed by the first Appellate Court. The High Court dismissed the second appeal. The dispute centers around the ownership and possession of a piece of land, with various claims and counterclaims of ownership based on tenancy, sale deeds, and compromise settlements. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the first Appellate Court, and confirmed the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the suit.

Background

• Appeal Filed: Defendants appealed against the Himachal Pradesh High Court order dated 15.12.2014.
• Original Suit: Plaintiffs filed for declaration and specific performance; Trial Court dismissed the suit.
• First Appeal: The first Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, decreeing the suit.
• Second Appeal: High Court dismissed the second appeal.

Facts Leading to the Civil Suit

• Initial Suit (1979): Mansha Ram and others filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Julfi Ram and others, claiming ownership of 7 kanals 9 marlas of land.
• Trial Court Decision (1983): Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs, declaring them owners in possession.
• First Appeal and Compromise (1984): During the appeal, a sale deed was executed, and plaintiffs stated a settlement had been reached, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

Second Round of Litigation

• Second Suit (1988): Julfi Ram and others filed for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of half the land based on the previous compromise.
• Defendants' Response: Defendants argued no formal compromise was recorded and claimed they had made improvements on the land.

Trial Court and First Appellate Court Decisions

• Trial Court (1992): Dismissed the suit, stating no written compromise existed.
• First Appellate Court (2001): Allowed the appeal, stating the Trial Court could not question the compromise and declared the sale deed invalid.

High Court's Decision

• Second Appeal (2002): High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the first Appellate Court's decree.

Supreme Court Analysis and Decision

• Status of Compromise Order: Supreme Court examined the nature of the compromise order from 1984.
• Ownership and Possession: Dismissal of the suit did not grant ownership; defendants remained tenants.
• Validity of Sale Deed: The sale deed executed during the pendency of the appeal was not invalidated by the compromise.
• Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC: No written and signed compromise existed; hence, the compromise decree was invalid.
• Final Judgment: Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court and first Appellate Court orders, confirming the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit.