SAKHARAM NANDLALJI Vs. BHAWANI RAM GAJANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the plaintiffs is directed against a decree of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur.

(2.) THE short question for consideration in the appeal is whether the learned Additional District Judge was justified in holding that the plaintiffs' suit was cot maintainablc. The plaintiffs purchased 15.22 acres of land, situate in Mouza Turkadih, from Shrimati Ahilyabai, widow of Kanhaiyalal, by a registered sale deed dated 30 11 -1954. Thereupon, Gajanand, who was the presumptive reversioner, brought Civil Suit No. 130 -A of 1957, challenging the sale by the widow, after the death of Shrimati Ahilyabai, on the ground that the sale was not binding on him. That suit was decreed on 17 -11 -1958, but before any appeal could be filed, the parties settled their dispute, as per the terms of the dastbardarnama dated 18 -12 -1958, Ex. P.3. By the relinquishment deed, Gajanand relinquished all his rights and title to the suit lands and declared that the plaintiffs shall be the exclusive owners thereof, in lieu of payment of Rs 1,000. The adjustment, however, remained to be certified. Meanwhile, Gajanand died during the execution proceedings. The defendants, who are heirs of Gajanand, were brought on record at his legal representatives. One of the. i.e. Bhawaniram, executed the decree, despite the objections of the plaintiffs, who are the judgment -debtors that the decree was discharged by the settlement. The matter was fought right upto the High Court. In Bhawani v. Sakharam & others Miscellaneous (Second) Appeal No.70 of 1961. it was held that, having regard to the provisions of Order 21, Rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the uncertified adjustment would not be recognized by the executing Court, stating - -

(3.) THE view taken by the learned Additional District Judge that the deed was not a deed of relinquishment can hardly be supported. The document is styled as 'dastbardarnama', and the recitals show that Gajanand had relinquished all his rights, title and interest in the suit lands and recognized the plaintiffs to be the owners thereof, on payment of Rs. 1,000. On a plain construction of the deed, it is nothing but a deed of relinquishment. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge, that no suit for title or possession, on the basis of the deed could lie, was not supported before me.