BAGGA SINGH Vs. CHUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A man called Sohan Lal of Ferozepore was the occupancy tenant of certain land situated in village Jamaitpura Dheru. He was subsequently declared insolvent and his property vested in the Special Official Receiver, Punjab and Delhi. Mr. Joshua, who was the Special Official Receiver sold the occupancy rights of the land in dispute to Chuni Lal for Rs. 900/-by means of a registered deed dated the 2nd of September 1942. Bagga Singh brought a Suit for preemption on the 16th December 1943. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the 1st of March 1946. He appealed to the District Judge, Ferozepore, who on the 23rd of May 1948, dismissed the appeal. He put in a second appeal before the Lahore High Court which is now before us for disposal.

(2.) This appeal came up originally before a Bench of this Court. At the time of hearing before the Bench on the 8th of April 1948, it was alleged that there had been a compromise between the parties. Two compromises were put forward, one by the respondent and one by the appellant. On this the Bench dealing with this matter framed four issues and sent the case to the trial Court to make a report on these issues. The issues were:

(3.) On the 9th of August 1948, the trial Judge made his report. He came to the conclusion that there was no fraud committed, but that there was but one single compromise though there were two compromise deeds both effected and reduced to writing the same day on two different pieces of papers Exs. P. A. and D. A.; that Ex. D. A. was the one which related to the present appeal while Ex. P. A. related to other matters. Ex. D. A. merely stated that Bagga Singh appellant gave up the appeal in the High Court and that the parties should be left to bear their own costs. Ex, P. A. related to certain other property and the compromise regarding that property was between. Bagga Singh, Dhanpat Rai and Chuni Lal Dhanpat Rai is the real maternal uncle of Chuni Lal and was the special attorney for him in this litigation. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the terms in Ex. p. A. had not been carried out. In fact the respondent denied the very existence of Ex. P. A. The learned Judge held that Ex. p. A. and Ex. D. A. stand and fall together and before the respondent can call upon the Court to give effect to what is contained in Ex. D. A. he must fulni or see to the fulfilment of the terms in Ex. P. A. His view was that as the respondent was not prepared to carry out or to see to the carrying out of the part of compromise in Ex. P. A., then what is contained in Ex. D. A. should be ignored and the appeal should be decided on merits.