TEK RAM Vs. ASTHAL THAKAR MUDLANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff but the lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and held that the judgment and decree Exhibits P-5 and P-6 to the extent it was underlined with para 2 of its judgment is void.

(2.) Counsel for the appellants submitted that the view taken by the lower appellate Court was erroneous as in absence of finding of fraud or other grounds vitiating the decree, the decree could not be held to be void. The lower appellate Court has observed that there was an error in the decree (copy Exhibit P-6) which was beyond the compromise deed. Counsel for the appellants stated that the impugned decree was based on the statements of the parties.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the appellants and perusing the record, the view taken by the lower appellate Court appears to be clearly erroneous. There appears to be no basis for the declaration granted by the lower appellate Court that the terms of the decree (Exhibit P-6) to the extent it was underlined in para 2 of its judgment would be ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.