MISRI LAL NAYAK Vs. SURJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated May 15, 1945, reversing in second appeal the judgment and decree in first appeal of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga dated August 14, 1943, and dismissing the appellant's suit.

(2.) THE contention of the appellant is that the learned Judge who heard the second appeal in the High Court reversed decisions of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court, and that in so doing he acted contrary to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is settled law that in view of that section a High Court has no power in second appeal to question findings of fact reached by the first appellate Court which there was evidence to support.

(3.) ON March 29, 1930, Mukh Lal and Santi Nayak presented to the appellate Judge an application for recording a compromise of the appeal. It was signed by Mukh Lai in person and by Santi Nayak by his attorney, and was in the following terms : The appeal has been compromised between the appellant and the respondents. According to the terms of the said compromise it has been settled that this appeal may be allowed and the decree dated 7-7-28 may be set aside and the title suit may be restored to its original number and Mukblal Prasad appellant may be removed from the category of defendants because the petitioner respondents have now come to know on enquiry and investigation that in fact the appellant has no connection with Mangni Ram and recently Mangni Ram has had in full the entire decrial amount with cost to the respondent consequently the auction sale will be set aside. Hence this petition is submitted and it is prayed that the auction sale and the decree may be set aside und the appeal may be decreed. The parties will bear their own costs of the appeal. In attestation hereof the signatures of the respondents and the lawyer's of the appellants and the respondents are affixed herein below. The petition of Mukhlal Prasad appellant and Shanti Nayak respondent,' dated 29-3-30.