SITA RAM GOEL Vs. SUKHNANDI DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal, by special leave, has argued his came in person and attacks the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated January 21, 1969 reversing the decrees of the two Subordinate Courts.

(2.) The facts leading upto this appeal may be briefly stated: The respondent, who is the landlord, under whom the appellant is a tenant, obtained an ex parte decree on March 9,1957 in suit No. 74 of 1956 in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Kanpur. The decree was not only for eviction, but also for payment of rent or damages and mesne profits, as well as costs.

(3.) The appellants pleaded that there was a compromise entered into between him and the respondent in and by which the manner of extinguishment of the decree was arrived at. That compromise, according to the appellant was entered into on July 25, 1957. The terms of the compromise have been incorporated in the judgment of the Additional District Judge dated March 27, 1961 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 688 of 1960 and in other proceedings, and it is unnecessary for us to refer to them. It is enough to note that if the amounts agreed to be paid as per its terms, were paid the decree for eviction would stand extinguished retrospectively.