CHAINRAJ RAMCHAND REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF BANKERS CHAINRAJ RAMCHAND REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF BANKERS Vs. V S NARAYANASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S.672 of 1968 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore, is directed against the order dated 31211972 in I.A.No.131 of 1971, of the court below recording a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of defendants.

(2.) The said suit, O.S.672 of 1968,was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.22, 158.50 said to be owing from the defendants. While the said suit was pending the defendants filed I.A.131 of 1971, for recording a compromise said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and defendants. Under the compromise, the plaintiff is said to have received a sum of Rs.1, 000 and has agreed to receive the balance of Rs.4, 000 in full settlement of the claim as against the defendants. The plaintiff resisted the said application contending that there was no compromise of the suit claim, that the compromise said to have been entered into by one Mohanlal chainraj who was not binding o n the plaintiff and he had no authority to represent the firm, and that in fact though there was a compromise between Mohan lal Chainraj and the defendants with reference to the amounts due to him in respect of the claim in O.S.343 of 1968, the suit claim was not compromised at all.

(3.) In support of the defendant's case that there was a compromise between the parties in respect of the suit claim, they have filed Exs. A1 to A12, and examined PWs. 1 and 2, while the plaintiff has filed Ex.B.1 and examined RW1. The trial court held that as Mohanlal Chainraj has been authorized to act on behalf of the firm he had the requisite authority to compromise, and that the fact that admittedly there was a compromise in the other suit, O.S.343 of 1968, on the file of SubCourt, Coimbatore, at the instance of Mohanlal Chainraj, the compromise set up by the defendants in this case should also be true. In this view, the trial court recorded the compromise under O.23, R 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff firm has challenged the finding of the trial court that there has been a compromise between the parties in relation to the suit claim and that the said compromise was legally valid.