JOKHU Vs. BHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal from a decree of the Courts below cancelling the decrees passed under Section 59 of the U. P. Tenancy Act by a revenue Court in suits Nos. 375 and 376 of 1945, on the ground that the said decree had been passed on the basis of statements made by a party under Section 10 of the Oaths Act after accepting an offer made by the guardian of minors who had not obtained the leave of the Court under Order 32, Rule 7, C.P.C.

(2.) The previous suits under Section 59 of the U. p. Tenancy Act had been instituted by Bhaiya Lal, Misri Lal and Desraj minors (contesting respondents before us) through their uncle and guardian Ram Narain against Jokhu appellant (and three others, who are pro forma respondents before us) for a declaration that they were tenants. It seems that there were two holdings and consequently there were two suits. The title of the contesting respondents depended upon their mother Smt. Chhitra being a daughter of one Anandi, the appellant who was a collateral of Anandi, had denied that she was, and consequently had denied the contesting respondents' title. The respondents had examined Chhitra and Ram Narain as their witnesses ard then their Mukhtar and Ram Narain had made an offer that if the appellant stated holding Ganges water in his hand that Chhitra was not the daughter of Anandi their suit might be dismissed No. pemission of the Court had been obtained by Ram Narain for getting the suit decided in this manner The offer had been put to the appellant who had accepted it. The appellant had then made a statement with Ganges water in his hand to the effect that Chhitra was not the daughter of Anandi and that the suit of the respondents was false. On the basis of that statement the Court had dismissed the suits on 3-11-45.

(3.) The suit that has given rise to this appeal was instituted by the respondents through their father Bechu Lal as their guardian, for cancellation of the two decrees mentioned above on the grounds of gross negligence of Ram Naraiu guardian and his failure to obtain leave of the Court under Order 32, Rule 7, C. P. C. The Courts below did not give any finding on the question of negligence, but held that since no leave of the Court had been obtained by Ram Narain, the minor respondents were not bound by the statement made by the appellant Jokhu and that no decrees could be passed on treating his evidence as conclusive proof of the matter stated therein.