RIYASALUNNISA BEGUM Vs. SYED TAHWAR HUSSAIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two miscellaneous appeals one on behalf of Riyasatunnissa Begum and the other on behalf of Izzatunnissa Begum alias Azizunnissa Begum, against the order of the first Judge, City Civil Court, d. 4-3-1955 refusing to pass a decree in terms of the compromise. These appeals arise out of suits filed by Riyasatunnissa Begum and Tahwar Hussain Khan. During the pendency of the suits, Riyasatunnissa Begum and Tahwar Hussain Khan and other sons of the late Nawab Kamal Yar Jung entered into a compromise. In both these suits, they filed separate compromise petitions requesting the court to pass a decree in terms of the compromise. The Court below has refused to pass a decree in terms of the compromise on the ground that the liability acknowledged by the parties to the compromise is not personal, but is attached to the matruka and unless it is determined as to how much matruka is in the possession of Riysatunnissa Begum no decree could be passed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the court below has erred in holding that no decree in terms of the compromise could be passed at that stage. Relying on the cases of Surendra Nath Mitra v. Tarubala Dus 123 IC 545 , Laraiti v. Ch. Shamsunder Lal AIR 1932 All 478 , Mahbu bunissa Begum v. Putli Begum 34 DLR 520 , Kishen Das L.R. Bansilal v. Ranu 25 DLR 622 and Mir. Subhan Ali Khan v. Ghausunisa Begum 13 DLR 431 it is contended that under Or. 23, Rule 3, C.P.C. it is obligatory on the court to pass a decree in terms of the compromise.

(3.) In order to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel, a reference to Order 23 Rule 3, C.P.C. is necessary, which is: