RAM GATI CHAUBE Vs. RAN ADHAR CHAUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurtu, J. has referred to us the entire appeal with the following question for specific opinion :

(2.) It seems to me that the question assumes three things firstly, that in the instant case the order of the mutation court embodies the petition of compromise affecting immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 which purports to regulate the future rights of the parties in that property; secondly, that the petition of compromise, having been embodied in the order, becomes admissible; and, thirdly, the compromise evidenced by the order is conclusive and binding upon the parties. I have, therefore thought it proper to split up and reformulate the question in my own language in this manner :

(3.) Facts no longer in dispute are these: In 1942. on the death of Mst. Gaugi, the widow of the last male owner, Sheo Shankar Chaube, the-appellant, a son of the daughter of his predeceased son, and the respondent, his nephew, claimed mutation of their names over the deceased's estate, which also comprised the suit property, but by an application, dated January 13, 1943. they requested the Sub Divisional Officer, seized of the mutation case', to mutate their names over the property in accordance with the mutual settlement embodied in the application. Accordingly the appellant's name was mutated, in respect of the suit property, and the respondent's name over the remainder. Respondent, however, instituted a suit for recovery of the suit-property; the suit was1 decreed on appeal by the Civil judge, who held that the application, dated January 13, 1943 which formed the basis of mutation, could not confer any right to suit property on the appellant and was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.