SHARIFAN Vs. KHUJJA @ KHUJJI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Smt. Sharifan against the judgment and order dated 7-8-2000 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi in Appeal No. 34/39 of 94-95 dis­trict Hamirpur arising out of a suit under Section 176of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that appeal was decided in terms of com­promise on 29-8-95. An application was moved by Sml. Sharifan on 24-12-98 for setting aside the order dated 29-8-95. It was alleged that the applicant did not have any knowledge about the comprise or com­prise decree till 24-12-98 when the comprise was got entered by putting in some impostor woman on place of real Smt. Sharifan and that a fraud had been played in getting the compromise. The learned Additional Com­missioner found that the compromise had been validly entered upon by the parties and dismissed the application. Feeling ag­grieved by this order Smt. Sharifan has filed the present revision.

(3.) IT is obvious that Smt. Shani'an put her thumb mark on the compromise and her thumb mark was identified by Shri Rakesh Nigam Advocate. The com­promise was verified before the Court. The learned Additional Commissioner also took note of the fact that plot No. 61/1 which went to Sml. Sharifan on the basis of the division was sold in two parts by her and mutation on the basis of one sale-deed was affected on 9-12-98 and mutation on the basis of other sale deed was affected on 1-12-99. From this the learned Additional Commissioner inferred that Smt. Sharifan had full knowledge about the compromise decree. Rakesh Nigam who had identified the thumb mark of Smt. Sharifan did not come to say that he had not identified the thumb mark of the lady. The Counsel for Smt. Sharifan who appeared before the learned Additional Commissioner did not disclose anything about the circumstances in which the sale-deeds were executed by her. The learned Additional Commis­sioner after taking the entire circumstan­ces of the case in consideration found that the compromise decree had been lawfully passed by the consent of the parties and was not liable to be recalled. The restora­tion application moved by revisionist was rightly dismissed. I do not find any error or jurisdictional mistake in the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner.