NIRANJAN SAMAL Vs. TIRILOCHAN KUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAITITIFF 's suit, for setting aside a compromise decree obtained in O.S. No. 292/44 of the Court of Munsif of Jaipur having been decreed by both the Courts below, the defendant has brought this second appeal. Sadhu Charan Bal, Nrusingh Charan Bal and others were the co -sharer -Sarbarakars in respect of three mouzas.

(2.) THE defence is that in fact the compromise was entered into bona fide by the parties to the suit and the defendant had nothing to do with the criminal cases or the other civilsuits. In fact, according to the defence there was no such agreement between the parties for the withdrawal of Nrusingh's suit or other criminal cases.

(3.) MR . Mohanty, appearing on behalf of the defendant -appellant, takes up the point that the terms of the contract between the parties to the compromise decree can be referred to only as appearing in the compromise petition filed and any other evidence in respect of any terms or conditions which will have effect of contradicting or varying or adding to the terms of the compromise petition (Ex. 3) is barred under the provisions of Section 92, Evidence Act.