GANGA PRASAD Vs. KU. USHA SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff appellants have filed a suit against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claiming reliefs of declarations that the possession of defendant No.1 Smt. Laxmibai (who is dead and L. Rs. are brought on record) in property described in para 8 (a) of the plaint and the map shown in read lines, is that of licensee of plaintiff No.1 and the plaintiffs were in actual possession of the room described in paragraph 8 (d) on or about 12.1.1964 and that the plaintiff No.1 be put in possession of portion described in para 8 (a) and (d) and for mesne profits. The suit was filed on 29th March, 1996.

(2.) UNDER Order 23. Rule 3, CPC, as amended in the year 1976, when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject -matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject -matter of the suit. Thus, for recording a compromise and passing a decree on the application for compromise arrived at between the parties, it is necessary for the Court to be satisfied that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part, and that the compromise is lawful. The application as it is filed, by the parties to compromise, a decree is sought for, recognising the partition of the house and declaring ownership on the respective portion; whereas the suit is for reliefs claimed as mentioned above. Thus, as the result of compromise between the parties the relief claimed by the plaintiffs or the questions which arc required to be adjudicated by the Court for deciding the suit are not being adjusted wholly or in part. That being the position the Court was justified in refusing the recording of the compromise.