RAMA SHANKER Vs. THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the controversies involved therein are the same. Both the petitions are directed against concurrent orders passed by the courts below upholding a compromise and rejecting the various objections taken by the petitioner as to the validity thereof. The courts below have found that the compromise in question was validly reached between the parties and that the suit filed by Smt. Lakhpati being suit No. 47 of 1968 against the petitioner and one Uma Shanker was rightly disposed of in terms of that compromise. The petitions arise out of two suits namely suit No. 47 of 1968 and Suit No. 30 of 1970. The latter suit was filed by the petitioner against Uma Shanker aforesaid. As a result of the compromise both these suits have been disposed of on terms thereof.

(2.) THE petitioner was defendant No. 2 in suit No. 47 of 1968. Uma Shanker was defendant No. 1 in that suit. THE suit was filed by Smt. Lakhpati for cancellation of a sale deed Dt. 4-10-1963 said to have been executed by her in favour of Rama Shanker. THE plaint allegations were that the plaintiffs husband Tapeshwari was the sole proprietor of the plots in suit which were his sir and Khudkasht. Tapeshwari died about 30 years prior to the institution of the suit leaving the plaintiff and his son Parmatma as his heirs. Parmatma also died about 15 or 16 years. THE plaintiff thus became the sole owner of the properties of her husband including the plots in dispute of which she became the sole bhumidhar after the abolition of Zamindari. THE plaintiff was an illiterate and simple lady depending for everything on Uma Shanker the defendant No. 1 in the suit, who was an employee of the plaintiff's husband. THE plaintiff reposed full confidence in defendant No. 1. Taking advantage of all these things defendant No. 1 fraudulently got his own name entered in the revenue records in respect of the disputed plots and thereafter fraudulently got a sale deed executed m favour of her own son-in-law, Rama Shanker, the defendant No. 2 in the suit the petitioner herein. THE plaintiff never consciously executed any sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 and the same having been obtained by fraud was liable to be cancelled. On these assertions the plaintiff prayed that the sale deed standing in the name of the petitioner be cancelled. This suit was filed on 8-2-1968.

(3.) IT appears that after the compromise was filed in the court on 28-11-1973, an attempt was made by the petitioner to repudiate the compromise, contending that the compromise ought not to be recorded as the sum of Rs. 5,000/- which is stated therein to have been received by him was in fact not paid to him and that the statement to the contrary in the compromise was wrong. A dispute having arisen as to whether the compromise has been duly entered into between the parties, evidence was led both on behalf of the plaintiff as well as on behalf of the petitioner in the shape of oral testimony. The court considered the evidence on the record and the arguments advanced by the parties and came to the conclusion under its order Dt. 14-12-1976 that a lawful compromise had been validly reached between the parties and that the compromise must, therefore, be recorded. The court below, therefore, directed that the suit be disposed of on terms of the compromise and a compromise decree was drawn up in terms thereof.