Requesting your opinion on the following. Thank you very much.
INTRODUCTION:
A jointly owned land dispute in which defendants changed their mind and willing to cooperate with plaintiffs, after defendants won the case.
SALIENT FEATURES OF THE CASE:
1) Joint land, owned by many brothers.. Land undivided internally, as per Jamabandhi.
2) Land was divided between the brothers in 1996, as per an internal map drawn by them, in an "out of court" agreement, but this internal division map was NOT REGISTERED in Jamabandhi. All six brothers signed the agreement, but the original cannot be found, only the photostat is available.
3) One brother then died, and his sons (X) sold some parts of the land without honouring the out of court settlement map mentioned in point 2. A sale deed was created and sale was registered in the Jamabandhi.
4) The five surviving brothers (Y) who's land portions, as divided as per the out of court settlement map mentioned in point 2, were adversely affected by the sale, then filed a case for permanent injunction on the sale deed mentioned in point 3. (Plaintiff=Y)
5) Defendants (X) spoke the untruth in court, and said there was no out of court agreement or map between their father and the rest of the brothers, and therefore their sale as mentioned in point 3, cannot be disputed by Y. Further Defendants added that their sale was valid as per Jamabandhi.
6) The court acknowledged that there was indeed an out of court settlement, and map, on the basis of some exhibits and site survey by court appointed Tehsildar, but rejected the plaintiff (Y) case on the basis of some technical faults with the case*, as well as the fact that the out of court settlement and map in point 2, was NOT REGISTERED in the Jamabandhi.
7) Defendants (sons mentioned in point 3, or X) are now willing to cooperate with Y, the plaintiffs, AFTER THE CASE IS OVER.
_________________________________________
*Comments by the court:
A) Plaintiffs Y only sought for "simplicator injunction" and no "declaration" was sought on the disputed sale deed mentioned in point 3, so the court said they were unable to provide injunction because of clause 41(h) of the "Specific Relief Act".
B) Out of court settlement is not registered, and case laws provided by plaintiff to support validity of out of court settlements are not applicable, and went against the plaintiff. Cannot accept the unregistered out of court settlement.
C) Original of the out of court settlement (point 2) was not submitted to the court, only a photostat.
__________________________________________
Questions:
Defendants X are now willing to cooperate with Plaintiffs Y, after plaintiff has lost the case as mentioned before in point 7.
How should the plaintiffs proceed in the future, in order that technical mistakes do not recur, which court to file the case in, what to write, under what section?
Can plaintiffs refile the case, from a fresh start, please do keep in mind that the defendants are now willing to cooperate with the plaintiffs.
In who's name can a fresh case be filed?
DECLARATION/JUSTICE SOUGHT BY COURT:
The court should declare the division map as per point 2 as legal and enforceable, and declare that the sale deed, as mentioned in point 3, is illegal, and then pass an order that henceforth in the future, the MAP prepared by the brothers in point 2, should be honoured and followed, at all times, for all purposes.
Please provide some insights and comments into the above mentioned.
Much appreciated.
Thank you.
