PITCHANDI Vs. KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have passed a detailed order on 30.9.1994. As counsel on both sides represented to us on that day that there was a likelihood of a settlement between the parties we passed that order making certain suggestions and also adjourned the matter to enable the parties to come to an amicable settlement. Now it is reported that the settlement was not possible as the daughter of the petitioner refused to sign a deed of relinquishment.

(2.) THE fact that the daughter of the petitioner has refused to sign the deed of relinquishment is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of this case as it is entirely outside the scope of the present proceeding. We ventured to refer to the execution of the release deed only because the counsel indicated that there could be a settlement on the lines stated in the said order and a suggestion followed from us. We must point out that all the parties concerned were present before us on that day and only after ascertaining from the parties, counsel made such representation to us. Now that there is no settlement, the only course open to us is to dispose of this petition on its merits.

(3.) APART from that the Panchayat Muchalika produced by the first respondent shows that several villagers have signed the same and the petitioner has also signed it. We have already referred to the fact that the petitioner admitted before us that there was no enmity between him and the villagers who have signed the said Muchalika. Hence, we are not prepared to accept the version of the petitioner that he was forced to sign a blank paper and the Muchalika was filled up by the villagers later. The place in which the signature of the petitioner is found in the Muchalika also shows that he did not sign a blank paper and he signed it only after the contents were written. We are of the view that if the girl had not become a major and if the petitioner had not expressed his consent for the marriage of his daughter with the first respondent the Panchayat Muchalika would not have been brought into existence and so many villagers would not have signed the same. The petitioner is not able to give any reason whatever as to why almost all the villagers should turn against him and be party to the document which according to him, is against his will and forced upon him.