BACHNI Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for determination in this appeal turns on the extent of authority which a counsel has in law to compromise a case on behalf of his client.

(2.) THE appellant Mst. Bachni brought a suit for possession of the land in dispute in village Kheri Barna in tehsil Patiala, on the ground that she was entitled to succeed to it as sister of the last male-holder Sarwan. The land was owned by Baru and on his death it devolved on his son Sarwan who died issueless. The estate of Sarwan devolved upon his mother Mst. Atri and widow Mst. Parsini. Parsini having remarried her share in the estate also went to Mst. Atri. Mst. Atri gifted the entire land in favour of her daughter Kartaro by means of a registered gift-deed. On the death of Kartaro, the land devolved on her daughter Mohinder Kaur who died issueiess somewhere in the end of 1955. The mutation of the land in dispute was then sanctioned by the revenue authorities in favour of the defendants who are collaterals of the seventh degree. Bachan Kaur claimed possession of the property as the sister of Sarwan asserting that under special custom a sister of the last male-holder excluded succession of collaterals. Another ground of her claim was that the line of donees having suffered a complete extinction the land reverted back to Mst. Atri and the plaintiff was entitled to succeed as her daughter also in preference to the collaterals. According to the plaintiff, she was further entitled to succeed to Kartaro as her sister, she having become an absolute owner of the property which had become her stridhan.

(3.) THE suit was decreed by the trial Court on 29th of December, 1958. The appeal preferred by the defendants, however, succeeded and the case was remanded under Order 41, Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 29th of April, 1959 after an additional issue had been framed to find out whether the plaintiff was in fact a sister of Sarwan. The trial Court made a report on 27th of August, 1959, that the plaintiff had proved that she was a sister of Sarwan. At the time of hearing of the appeal or 29th of October, 1959, the case was compromised between the parties: the plaintiff was awarded a decree for half share of the land in suit against the defendants appellants. Some complication arose in the plaintiff re-gaining possession of this land, the consolidation proceedings having started in the meantime. The parties were afforded an opportunity to effect a private partition of the land between themselves if possible. No agreement was reached and the plaintiff made an application on 18th of November, 1959, to which date the proceedings had been adjourned, that her counsel had no authority to enter into a compromise and she was not bound by it. The plea was rejected by the learned Additional District judge, Patiala, who held that the counsel had authority to enter into the compromise. A decree for one-half of the suit land has accordingly been made in favour of Mst. Bachni.