JAMUNA AHIR Vs. RAM BALI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) BESIDES seeking declaration concerning title to compensation and rehabilitation grant, plaintiffs had sought certain more reliefs concerning injunction and declaration about some plot against some other set of defendants. The Munsif dismissed the suit in toto. The first appellate court, however, partly allowed the appeal and so far as the compensation and rehabilitation grant for the estate, as per schedule appended to the plaint, the suit for declaration was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The contesting defendants affected by such decree have preferred this appeal.

(3.) THE first point that would arise for consideration is whether Lallu Singh alias Gulab is the son of Hazari's daughter as to have any interest in the properties left by Hazari. It is noteworthy that in the written statement that was filed by Lallu alias Gulab he admitted that he is not Hazari's daughter's son and further admitted that he has no interest in the property in suit. Not only that a compromise was also later filed. Appellant Lallu alias Gulab thereafter moved the application 141-C2 before the trial court itself for setting aside his earlier written statement as well as the compromise. As stress was laid upon the averments of application 141-C2, I may refer to the same. In the compromise, 140-A, filed by defendant Lallu alias Gulab and the plaintiffs jointly, it was stated that the suit may be decreed against the defendant concerned and the defendant concerned and the plaintiffs inter-se will bear their own costs and the defendant concerned is not the daughter's son of Hazari, nor his mother was the daughter of Hazari and it was also stated that the plaintiffs are the Zamindars Bhumidbars of the plots in suit and they are entitled to the compensation and rehabilitation grant. This compromise was duly verified before the court. In the application, 141-C, it was simply stated that the applicant's mother, Dulari, was the daughter of Hazari, and the applicant is her son and is entitled to the entire property of Hazari Singh, and before the date of the written statement the plaintiffs started contacting the applicant and got him under their influence and giving temptations obtained the signatures of the applicant on several papers and also secured verification before the court, and under inducement according to the desire of the plaintiffs and pressure from them the applicant-defendant acted on plaintiffs' dictates and a fraud was played upon and the written statement in question was not filed by the defendant and is a result of fraud and collusion, and the compromise is also not on independent advice, hence the compromise be cancelled and the defendant be allowed to withdraw the written statement. It is noteworthy that the application, 141-C2, is silent concerning the particulars of fraud, while the law requires that the particulars of the fraud are to be specifically pleaded. It is also silent as to how undue influence was exercised, what was the inducement given to the defendant Lallu Singh, how the defendant Lallu Singh acted at the behest of the plaintiffs and so forth so on. That being the position, the finding of fact of the first appellate court, that the compromise is binding upon the parties to the compromise and that the written statement and the admissions made therein cannot be withdrawn, cannot be disturbed in second appeal. I may also observe that from the materials on record also the stand taken by the applicant in application, 141-02, is not borne out. THE compromise was verified in presence of the court and any question of fraud or misrepresentation practised before the court would not arise. In that compromise also the very admission made in the written statement were repeated and affirmed. When that is the position, the first appellate court was justified in its finding.