DHYAN SINGH Vs. SHAKUNTALABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.' for short), aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 30.8.1996 in Civil Suit No. 7-A/ 1990 by IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Dewas, by which the suit of appellant has been dismissed as not maintainable under Order 23 Rule 3-A of C.P.C.

(2.) Learned Counsel for appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court below on following grounds :

(3.) The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in spite of service have not caused appearance. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 supported the judgment and decree passed by the Court below on the ground that the appellant who entered into an agreement to purchase the property which was subject-matter of the previous suit was not entitled to file the present suit to challenge the compromise decree of the previous suit. The present suit was specifically barred tinder Order 23, Rule 3-A of C.P.C. Reliance is placed to Apex Court judgment in Banwari Lal Vs. Smt. Chando Devi and another, AIR 1993 SC 1139 : 1994 (23) ALR 22 (SC) (R) and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Baijanti Bai Vs. Prago and others, AIR 1990 MP 370 . Apart from this the appellant does not get any right in the property as he had entered into an agreement to purchase the property which was subject-matter of the previous suit and during the pendency of the suit. if the appellant entered into an agreement, then the transaction is covered by the doctrine of Independence envisaged in sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. which also covers the agreement to purchase the property. The Trial Court has rightly decided issue No. 15 as preliminary issue and dismissed the suit, as the subsequent suit was specifically barred under Order 23, Rule 3-A, C.P.C.. In the impugned judgment and decree there is no illegality warranting interference of this Court and this appeal may be dismissed with costs.