25.3.1987 Tej pal(petitioner) is owner of Pg.

No 47
land 5 kannals and was
granted license to run petrol
pump by Bharat petroleum
corp l
1.04.1987  Parties started a Pg. no 25
partnership firm to
carry on the business
of petroleum
 Rampal claimed that
tejpal claimed to be
sole proprietor of
petrol filling station
and stop sharing profit
since 31.03.92
15.6.1988 There was litigation between Pg.no 21
parties ,declaring Rampal
(respondent) owner of half
portion of the land measuring 5
kanals and 14 marlas under
order 12 rule 6 cpc

24.7.1990  Tej pal agreed to sell

the property to rampal
vide agreement for sale
consideration of rs
2,30,000
 Earnest money 80000
was paid and rest to be
paid at the tie of
execution

10.9.92  Rampal – respondent

filed suit for specific
performance of
agreement sell and
another suit for
dissolution of
partnership
 Tejpal – petitioner
filed for declaration of
exclusive owner of the
suit property
All the suit heard and decided
on the same day
27.2.99 The trial court order
There were three different suits Pg.no 40
filled by respondent and
petitioner
 On hearing both
parties contention,
there is nothing on
record that plaintiff/
respondent- ramapal
that can conclude he is
wiling to enter into
agreement

 Selling of well
establish petrol pump
amount to foolishness
and defendant would
enter into agreement
unless out of undue
influence
 Plaintiff, brother
ishswar singh, ex mla
stand in dominating
relation with defendant
 The sell agreement
dated 24.7.90 cannot
be stated enforceable
in the eyes of law
 The suit for dissolution
of partnership frim and Pg.no 55
reedition of account
filed by respondent is
dismissed
 The defendant/
petitioner, suit for Pg.no 70-71
exclusive ownership of
property was demised
by trail court

2001 Plaintiff filled an appeal before

District judge
4.4.2003 Order passed district judge Pg. no 116
 the appeal is accepted
partly and the
impunged judgemnt
passed ADJ court are
modified
 plaintiff suit decreed
partly for recovery of
rs. 1,60,000 with
interest rate of 18% per
annum from 257.92 till
recovery
11.7.2003 Respondent/ dependent appeal Pg.no 117
before high court RSA No.
1690 of 206
27. 11. 2004  During the pendency Pg.no 127
of appeal before high
court and two appeal
before first appellate
court
 Parties enter into
settlement deed, that
tejpal (petitioner) had
to hand over the share
in land to respondent,
he had to pay 60 lakh
 Who so ever make
default, then pending
appeal will be decree
against him
 petitioner accepted the
1 lakh in term of
settlement
 later refuse to accept
amount as bharat
petroleum refused to
shit the petrol pump to
some other site
2.05.2006 Order passes by ADJ/Fast Pg.no 126-129
Track court
 Respondent –ram pal
move to court for
depositing reaming
amount
 Petitioner – tejpal
contented that
settlement stand
frustrated as bharat
petroleum refuse to
shifting to location
 The court rejected the
contention of tejpal
and declared
settlement as valid
14.08.2018 Impugned HC order Pg.no 1
 Hc , obverse that
settlement deed was
not dependent upon the
permission granted by
petroleum company
 The learned additional
district judge has Pg.no 6
correctly recorded that
the settlement deed is
neither result any fraud
 any result of any
misrepresentation
 There is no ground to
interfere with order Pg no 6
passed by learned
additional district
judge.

Tej pal and ram pal are closely related, the petitioner (tej pal) is brother In law of respondent ( ram
pal)