NARASAMMA Vs. T NARASIMHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This'purpose to be a second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. by the plaintiff-appellant. In the course of the Judgment, I will refer to the parties by the rank assigned to them in the trial Court.

(2.) O.S. No. 24/1988 was presented in the Court of the Munsiff at Gowribidanur by appellant Narasamma, the plaintiff. The suit was for declaration of her right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties as against the claims of the defendant, her husband T. Narasimhappa. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise petition was filed under Order 23, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. In terms of the compromise petition, the suit came to be decreed on 1-3-1988 in the presence of the parties in the Court. Soon thereafter, the defendant in the suit presented Misc. Petition No. 4/1988 inter alia alleging that he had married the plaintiff in the year 1953 and immediately after the marriage the relationship was strained and ultimately a registered document in the form of divorce was executed by the respondent and the same was duly registered on 10-4-1953. Thereafter, the respondent started living separately and she started living with one Venkataramanappa who was a Police Constable and she gave birth to 2 sons and 3 daughters through the said Venkataramanappa and the petitioner was innocent and simpleton and taking undue advantage of the innocence of the petitioner, the plaintiff took him to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gowribidanur and he was forced to put his signatures on various stamp papers and later the petitioner came to know that it was a sale deed in favour of the respondent in respect of the properties of which the petitioner was not at all tnc owner on that day. On 1-3-1988 the respondent and her supporters brought the petitioner before the Court and again taking advantage of the innocence of the petitioner, the defendant was made to believe that as he was aged and unable to carry on any agricultural operation the plaintiff will spend the money for the agricultural operation and as such the petitioner was further induced to believe that no harm would be caused to him and he was forced to put his signatures on certain papers and was forced to admit the contents of the documents before the Court and on 1-3-1988 he was completely under the will of the respondent and he blindly believed her and put his signatures on various papers and admitted its contents even though it was not read over to him and explained as to its consequences. Thus the plaintiff had played fraud on the defendant and obtained a compromise decree and when the respondent received the summons in OS, No. 26/1988 filed by one T. Narasimnanna be came to know the mala fide intention of the respondent and therefore he approached the Court and on verification he found ttiat the respondent had filed a suit against him in O.S. No. 24/1988 for the relief of injunction and declaration of title on various properties. The petitioner was forced to attend the Court on 1-3-1988 and he was forced to put his signature on the compromise petition and thus the compromise decree was the result of fraud and undue influence when the defendant was not in possession of disputed land but it was in possession of one Narasimhanna S/o Nyathanna and the compromise decree affected the right of third person and it was prayed to set aside the compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 24/1988.

(3.) The plaintiff who was respondent in the Misc. Petition filed her objections and denied the allegations made against her. Plaintiff petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 and he got marked as many as two documents Exs. P-l. and P-2. Respondent examined one witness and herself as R.W.-2 and got marked Exs. D-l to D-10. After considering the evidence, both oral and documentary produced before him, the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the entire exercise was pre-planned by the plaintiff- respondent to obtain a decree one way or the other. In that circumstance, discussing the case- law cited before him, he came to the conclusion that the petition was required to be allowed as the defendant had played fraud in the matter of obtaining a compromise decree in O.S. No. 24/1988. Aggrieved by that order made in the Misc. Petition No. 4/1988, the plaintiff preferred a Regular First Appeal in the Court of the Civil Judge at Chickballapur. The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that no appeal under Order 41, Rule 1 of C.P.C. was maintainable and as such he dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the present second appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the C.P.C.