BRAJESH KUMAR AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure the defendants-appellants have called in question the defensibility of the judgment and decree passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Betul in Civil Suit No. 3-A/1996.

(2.) The facts which are essential to be stated are that Civil Suit No. 4-A/1986 was instituted by the defendants appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the land situated at Khasra No. 336 admeasuring 1. 197 hectare before the first Additional District Judge, Betul. The Court on the basis of compromise application dated 6-10-1990 as contained in Ex. P-6 filed by the parties passed the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1990 as per Ex. P-5. As per the compromise, Ex. P-6, land bearing Khasra No. 955 admeasuring 4.56 acres at village Tikari was to be transferred in favour of Brajesh Kumar, appellant No. 1 in exchange of land bearing Khasra Nos. 335 and 336 and on the basis of the judgment and the decree exchange deed dated 7-10- 1994 was executed in favour of the appellant No. 1.

(3.) The State of M. P. and its functionaries instituted the present suit contending, inter alia, that in the earlier suit it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that Forest Department therein had unauthorisedly removed the trees from Khasra No. 336 belonging to Brajesh Kumar and hence, defendants should pay damages to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-, It was also pleaded that he should be declared as the owner of Khasra No. 336. Various documents were produced before the Court for grant of reliefs prayed. It was pleaded by the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries that Narendra Kumar, the defendant No. 3 in the present suit who was defending the civil suit No. 4-A/86 was not duly appointed as Officer-in-charge and had no authority to enter into any compromise on behalf of the State Government or for that matter on behalf of the forest department. It was pleaded that such a compromise was violative of provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and M. P. Land Revenue Code. It was urged that the defendants obtained the decree in a fraudulent manner by concealing the material facts and, therefore, the decree and the judgment passed in civil suit No. 4-A/86 is ab initio void and consequentially the execution of the exchange deed is also null and void.