REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 8879-8880          OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2708-09 of 2008

Jaswant Singh       .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Gurdev Singh & Ors.               .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These  appeals  are  filed  against  the  common  final  

judgment  and  order  dated  24.09.2007  passed  by  the  High  

Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second  

Appeal (RSA) Nos. 4473 and 4776 of 2004 whereby the High  

Court dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellant herein.

3) Brief facts:

a) Jaswant Singh-appellant  herein filed a Civil  Suit  being  

No.  3  of  1997  in  the  court  of  Civil  Judge,  (Jr.  Division)  

Hoshiarpur for declaration to the effect that he was the owner  

1

and in possession of land measuring 101 kanals 16 marlas  

situated in village Simbli,  H.B.  No.  272, Tehsil  and District  

Hoshiarpur  and  for  correction  of  the  revenue  entries  in  

Column No. 4 of Jamabandi Register wherein the respondents  

herein  had  been wrongly  shown to  be  the  owners.   It  was  

claimed  in  that  suit  that  one  Shri  Hazara  Singh,  s/o  Shri  

Nihal Singh was the owner of the properties in village Simbli,  

Bajraur and Chabbewal and after his death on 06.12.1972, by  

virtue of a Will dated 05.12.1971, he transferred his properties  

in  favour  of  the  appellant  herein  and  the  names  of  the  

respondents  mentioned  in  the  Jamabandi  Register  were  

wrong, illegal and liable to be corrected.   

b) Even as early as on 05.06.1972, a civil suit was filed by  

the appellant  herein in the court of  sub-Judge,  First Class,  

Hoshiarpur seeking permanent injunction against  one Amar  

Kaur and others restraining them from interfering in the land  

situated  in  Simbli.   During  the  pendency  of  the  suit,  the  

parties entered into a compromise dated 27.11.1972 and on  

that basis the suit was decreed on 08.12.1972 and Mutation  

No. 1536 was sanctioned in favour of the appellant herein with  

2

respect to 12-1/2 acres of land and the same was delivered to  

him  which  he  had  been  in  possession  since  16.02.1973.  

Respondent No. 1 herein and others considered Jaswant Singh  

to be the owner of 8 acres and regarding the remaining 4-1/2  

acres  of  land,  he  was  considered  to  be  in  mere  permissive  

possession as it was given to him in lieu of his father’s share  

in village Simbli, Chabbewal and Bajrawar for the purposes of  

cultivation only.  The appellant took various steps to change  

the names in the revenue entries but during this whole period,  

the  revenue  entries  remained  unchanged  in  the  name  of  

Hazara Singh and hence the appellant herein filed civil suit for  

correction of those entries in Jamabandi.   

c) Gurdev Singh-Respondent No. 1 herein, s/o Shri Karnail  

Singh filed a civil suit being RBT CS No. 145 of 1998 in the  

same Court and the matter was clubbed with Civil Suit No. 3  

of 1997 alleging therein that he was co-sharer in 1/4th share of  

land  of  Hazara  Singh  in  village  Simbli,  ½  share  in  village  

Chabbewal and 1/4th share in village Bajraur as Hazara Singh  

was  brother  of  their  grand  father.   Vide  order  dated  

20.04.2001, the civil Judge decreed the suit filed by Jaswant  

3

Singh-appellant herein and dismissed the suit filed by Gurdev  

Singh-Respondent No. 1 herein.   

d) Aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2001, Respondent No.  

1  herein  filed  RBT  Civil  Appeal  Nos.  68  &  75  of  

07.06.2001/04.06.2004 before the court of Additional District  

Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court-II, Hoshiarpur.  Vide order  

dated 28.09.2004, the Additional District Judge set aside the  

judgment  and  order  dated  20.04.2001  passed  by  the  Civil  

Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur and allowed the appeal filed  

against Civil  Suit  No. 3 of  1997 to the extent that Jaswant  

Singh-appellant herein is the owner of 8 acres of land and in  

possession of 4-1/2 acres of land at village Simbli, in view of  

compromise  dated  27.11.1972.   Feeling  aggrieved,  Jaswant  

Singh-appellant herein filed RSA Nos. 4473 and 4776 of 2004  

before  the  High Court  of  Punjab & Haryana at  Chandigarh  

whereby vide common judgment and order dated 24.09.2007,  

the High Court dismissed both the appeals.   The said order is  

under challenge before this Court in these appeals by way of  

special leave.

4

4) Heard Mr.  A.V.  Palli,  learned counsel  for  the appellant  

and  Shri  Chinmay  Khaladkar,  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondents.

5) As stated earlier, the appellant filed a suit for permanent  

injunction on 05.06.1972 alleging himself to be in possession  

as a co-sharer of land situated in village Simbli.  In the said  

suit, the parties entered into a compromise and on the basis of  

the  said  compromise  (Ex.P1),  a  decree  was  passed  on  

08.12.1972.  The interpretation of the said compromise is in  

dispute in the present proceedings.  As per the appellant, he  

became the owner and in possession of 12 ½ acres of  land  

situated in village Simbli whereas as per the defendants, the  

plaintiff  was  admitted  to  be  the  owner  of  8  acres  of  land  

situated in village Simbli but was given possession of another  

land  measuring  4½  acres  of  land  in  respect  of  his  share  

situated in village Chhabewal and Bajrawar.   The compromise  

decree was produced as Ex. P1 and the compromise deed was  

produced as Ex.D3.

6) In order to substantiate his claim, the appellant-plaintiff  

examined one Ajit Kumar Walia as PW-1 who deposed before  

5

the Court that the file relating to the decree is not available  

since the record was burnt due to fire which broke out in the  

record room on 16.06.1998.  Ashwani Kumar, PW-3, was also  

examined  who  in  turn,  deposed  that  Rupt  No.  242  dated  

16.02.1973 is not available in his record despite best efforts  

made by him.   

7) On  the  other  hand,  from  the  side  of  the  respondent-

Defendant, one Harbhajan Singh was examined as DW-1, who  

had  endorsed  the  fact  that  a  compromise  had  taken  place  

between the parties and a decree was passed on the basis of  

that  compromise.   He along with Dhan Kaur,  Pritam Kaur,  

Arjan  Singh,  Bakshish  Singh  and  Karam  Singh  were  the  

witnesses to  the  compromise.   He asserted that  as per  the  

compromise,  the  plaintiff-Jaswant  Singh  was  given  only  8  

acres of land in village Simbli.  Ashwani Kumar, Patwari who  

was examined as DW-3, had brought Mutation No. 1536 of  

Hazara Singh, certified copy of which is produced as Ex. DW  

3/A and the entry of mutation is at S.No. 22.  

8) It is further seen that based on the terms arrived at in  

the  compromise  and  the  decree  dated  08.11.1972,  the  

6

mutation of the land situated in village Simbli was sanctioned.  

Even though the appellant-Jaswant Singh raised an objection  

as to the compromise dated 27.11.1972, (Ex.D3), admittedly,  

the same has not been challenged by him either in his plaint  

or in the suit filed by him or in the written statement filed in  

the suit by the defendant-Gurdev Singh.  It is relevant to point  

out that in paragraph 3 of the plaint, the appellant-Jaswant  

Singh  categorically  mentioned  that  the  parties  have  

compromised and the decree dated 08.12.1972 was passed.  

In the written statement filed by the defendant-Gurdev Singh  

and others, it was categorically pleaded that the decree dated  

08.12.1972 was passed solely on the basis of the compromise  

entered  into  between  the  parties.   The  details  of  the  

compromise were also given in the written statement filed on  

21.01.1999 by Gurdev Singh.  Though in the replication to the  

amended written statement filed by Jaswant Singh, the terms  

and conditions of the compromise were not admitted but were  

also not denied and even it was pleaded that these terms and  

conditions  of  the  compromise  are  a  matter  of  record.   The  

compromise dated 27.11.1972 was not challenged by Jaswant  

7

Singh rather it can be said that he also relied upon it because  

the decree upon which he claims ownership, has been passed  

only  on  the  basis  of  this  compromise  dated  27.11.1992  

(Ex. D3).

9) Now the other question which remains to be decided is  

whether the compromise Ex. D3 is admissible in evidence or  

not?  The compromise dated 27.11.1972 has become the basis  

of  the  decree  dated  08.12.1972  passed  by  the  Sub-Judge,  

Hoshiarpur.  The perusal of Ex. D4 i.e., judgment and decree  

were passed as per the terms and conditions of compromise  

placed on file.  As rightly observed by the courts below, the  

compromise has merged into a decree and has become part  

and parcel of it.  To put it clear, the compromise had become a  

part of the decree which was passed by the court of Sub-Judge  

Ist Class, Hoshiarpur.  Hence, it is a public document in terms  

of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘the  

Act’) and certified copy of the public document prepared under  

Section 76 of the Act is admissible in evidence under Section  

77 of the said Act.  A certified copy of a public document is  

admissible  in  evidence  without  being  proved  by  calling  

8

witness.  Inasmuch as the decree was passed and drafted in  

the light of the compromise entered into between the parties,  

viz., the plaintiff and the defendants, the certified copy of such  

document  which  was  produced  before  the  Court,  there  is  

presumption  as  to  the  genuineness  of  such  certified  copy  

under Section 78 of the Act.  We have already noted that the  

appellant-Jaswant Singh has not challenged the genuineness  

of certified copy in any manner.   Although the record of the  

Court has been proved to be burnt in a fire in Judicial Record  

Room, Hoshiarpur on 16.06.1998, but the certified copy of the  

compromise  (Ex.D3),  which  is  the  part  of  the  decree  was  

obtained from the record room on 24.08.1988 and the Decree  

Ex.D4 was got issued on 12.09.1984.  In those circumstances,  

there is  no reason to doubt the authenticity of  compromise  

(Ex.D3).   Even otherwise,  as rightly  observed by the  courts  

below,  the appellant-Jaswant Singh had not  filed any other  

substitute of the document Ex.D3, on the basis of which the  

decree (Ex.D4) had been said to be passed.  As stated earlier,  

in view of the fact that the decree dated 08.12.1972 clearly  

says that the suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff as  

9

per the terms of the compromise placed on file, there can be  

no  other  way  to  interpret  the  decree  except  in  terms  and  

conditions of the compromise (Ex.D3).   

10) Thus, in view of the above discussion, it is to be held that  

the decree dated 08.12.1972 is to be read and interpreted in  

terms of the compromise (Ex.D3) dated 27.11.1972.  We are  

satisfied that the judgment and decree passed by the lower  

appellate Court as affirmed by the High Court is based upon  

proper appreciation of the terms of compromise (Ex.D3) and  

do not find any illegality or irregularity for interference.   

11) Consequently,  the  appeals  fail  and  are  accordingly  

dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

    ...……………. …………………………J.  

         (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

 .…....…………………………………J.    (JASTI CHELAMESWAR)  

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 21, 2011.                     

1