MAHILA BHANWARI BAI Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of the code of Civil Procedure 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 29-9-2006, passed by the II Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Sheopur, in Civil Miscellaneous appeal No. 31 -A/2006, quashing the compromise order dated 10-9-2000 passed by the Lok Adalat in Case No. 1 /2000 in Civil suit No. 186-A/1998.

(2.) THE plaintiffs Kashmir Singh, Ummed singh, Sarvan Kumar Singh and Ramkrishna Singh filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit initially the State of M. P. , Tahsildar, one sundara and Mahila Bhanwari Bai were defendants. Mahila Bhanwari Bai was the defendant No. 4. Subsequently, the name of defendant No. 3 Sundara, S/o Keshara, has been deleted. The plaintiffs pleaded in the suit that father of the plaintiffs Kalyan singh had been in possession of the suit land and his possession was recorded up to samvat 2027. He died on 6th June, 1991 and thereafter name of Devalya alias Douja has been recorded as Bhumiswami of the land from Samvat 2026-2030. Devalya sold the land by a Registered Sale Deed dated 22-2-1969 in favour of Sundara. The name of Sundara was also got mutated as bhumiswami over the land vide order dated 13-9-1982, however, the father of the plaintiffs and Devalya had been in possession of the land and thereafter the plaintiffs had been in possession of the land. The tahsildar, Sheopurkala, District Morena defendant No. 2 issued a proclamation with regard to auction of the land on 31-8-1991. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiffs claimed a relief for declaration and permanent injunction. On behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2. State of Madhya Pradesh, through Collector and Tahsildar, a separate written statement has been filed before the court. In the aforesaid written statement, it has been pleaded that the name of Devalya alias Douja was recorded as Bhumiswami of the land from Samvat 2026-2030, however, thereafter the defendant No. 4 has been recorded as Bhumiswami of the land in the revenue record. It has further been denied that the plaintiffs and father of the plaintiffs had been in possession over the land. It has further been stated that after Devalya, the land was acquired by the State Government and it had been given to the Krishi upaj Mandi Samiti, Sheopur and the land was also auctioned for agriculture purpose by the Tahsildar. The defendant No. 4 filed a separate written statement and she pleaded that the plaintiffs have no right over the land. The matter was listed before the lok Adalat for compromise. The issues have also been framed by the trial Court and one of the issue was that whether the plaintiffs and father of the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit land? or whether they are the owner of the suit land? In the Lok Adalat the case was compromised between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4. Mahila bhanwari Bai and as per the aforesaid compromise, the Lok Adalat passed an order dated 10-9-2000. As per the aforesaid order, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was rejected. The defendant No. 4 Manila Bhanwari bai has been declared as owner of the suit land and it has also been declared that she was entitled to have mutation in her favour of the land and a further order was passed that nobody would interfere in her possession.

(3.) AFTER passing of the order, appellants no. 1, 2 and 3, who are plaintiffs No. 1, 3 and 4, filed an appeal before the appellate Court against the order of compromise of the Lok adalat, which was presided by one Civil judge. It has been mentioned in the appeal that the appellants did not authorize the Advocate to sign the compromise application before the Lok Adalat. The land was sold to sundara by Registered Sale Deed and the defendant No. 4 was never in possession over the land, hence, the order and compromise of the Lok Adalat is void and illegal. The learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree set aside the order passed by the Lok Adalat.