PRAHALAD RA Vs. NARASINGH MAHAPATRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHAMPA Dibya filed O.S. No. 172 of 1961 in the court of the Munsif, Puri, for declaration of sale deed (ext. A) dated 7 -11 -1960 executed by her in favour of Defendant No. 1 (opp. party No. 3, Brudaban Mohapatra) and a subsequent sale deed (ext, B) dated 9 -6 -1961 executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 as invalid and inoperative, On 8 -11 -62 the suit was decreed by the Munsif, Puri. Plaintiff's title to the suit property was declared and both the sale deeds were declared invalid and inoperative. Petitioner preferred Title Appeal No. 6 of 1963 on 11 -1 -1963 in the court of the District Judge, Puri. Champa Dibya died on 1 -3 -1963. Sarpani ra (opp. party No. 2) was substituted in her place as her legal representative by -order dated 28 -6 -1963. On 8 -11 -1963 Narasingh Mahapatra (opp. party No. 1) filed an application under Order 22, Rule 10 read with Section 141, Code of Civil Procedure Code, alleging that Champa sold the lands, forming the subject -matter of the appeal, to him on 31 -12 -1962 for Rs. 1000/ - under a registered sale deed and praying that he should be permitted to be impleaded as a Respondent to effectively contest the appeal. On same day, a compromise petition was filed by the Petitioner and opp. party No. 2. On those applications the learned District Judge the following order on 8 -1l -1963:

(2.) MR . Mohapatra very strenuously contended that the learned District Judge having recorded the compromise was bound to pass a decree in accordance thereof and had no jurisdiction to contain the application of Narasingh to be added as a party -Respondent and that he should not have passed an order that the compromise petition was to be put up at the time of final disposal of the appeal.

(3.) THE application by Narasingh and the joint petition of compromise were filed on the same date. There is no assertion on the part of the Petitioner, nor is there any material on record to show that the petition of compromise was filed earlier than the application of Narasingh. On the contrary, the order dated 8.11.1963 shows that the application of Narasingh was filed earlier. At any rate, in the absence of materials to the contrary, it cannot be said that it was filed later. On this finding, the contention raised by Mr. Mohapatra is wholly academic. If the application for addition of party under Section 146, Code of Civil Procedure was filed earlier or simultaneously, the lis was then pending. The only legal order that can be legitimately passed in those circumstances would be to enquire into the application of Narasingh and to dispose of the compromise petition thereafter. If on enquiry it is found that the transfer by Champa in favour of Narasingh is genuine, for consideration and passed a valid title, then the entire interest of Champa in respect of the subject -matter of the appeal passed by assignment in favour of Narasingh who alone is competent to be a party -Respondent to the appeal in place of Champa. Sapani would have no further interest in the property and any compromise effected by him would not dispose of the appeal.