KEJA BAI Vs. DAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of proceedings under O. 23, R. 3, C.P.C. The petitioner, Mst. Keja Bai, instituted a suit on October 15, 1956 against Dayaram for possession of 44 -99 acres of land and a house in village Barekelkala, Tahsil Mahasamund. It was, alleged by her that the disputed land belonged to one Paltan who died on January 6, 1956. She succeeded to his estate as his widow and was in possession of the disputed property but taking undue advantage of her helplessness, the defendant forcibly took possession of the house and the land under, a false claim of being Paltan's adopted son. She claimed to be the sole heir of Paltan. The defendant resised the suit alleging that he had been adopted by Paltan.

(2.) ON February 21, 1958 which was fixed for the evidence of the parties, adjournment was requested by both sides as they had to attend a marriage. The case was fixed for July 19, 1958. On the last mentioned date the defendant filed an application that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties. This was denied by the plaintiff. The trail Judge recorded evidence and decided in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff went appeal but did not succeed.

(3.) DAYARAM defendant examined himself in support of the application and produced Maroti Rao (the stamp vendor); Bhujbal, (the plaintiff's Mukhtar) and Gokuldas, (the scribe). Keja Bai plaintiff examined herself and denied that any compromise was arrived at or that, any stamp was purchased by her or that she, executed any compromise or any other document after the institution of the suit. Both the Courts below have particularly relied on the statement of Bhujbal, Keja Bai's Mukhtar. According to his statement the compromise was that Dayaram would transfer 22 acres of land by a registered deed to Sukwaro and would pay Rs. 2,200 -to Keja Bai and then Keja Bai would get the suit dismissed. This he stated both in the examination -in -chief as also in the cross -examination. But in the defendant's application under O. 23, R. 3 there in no mention of the condition to transfer land to Sukwaro. (I am told by the learned counsel that she is Kejabai's daughter). Secondly, it is averred in the defendant's application that the plaintiff accepted that he (the defendant) was Paltan's adopted son and also acknowledged that her marriage with Paltan had been dissolved. Bhujbal says nothing about it. The trial Judge said in conclusion. -