KHUSHAL SINGH Vs. DEVINDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant against whom the plaintiffs' suit for redemption of the suit land was decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) One Mahinder Nath sold the suit land to the defendant-appellant Khushal Singh on 12th June, 1964 for a sum of Rs. 7,500/- To challenge the said sale a suit for pre-emption was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents on 16th July, 1965. Therein a compromise was arrived at between the parties and in view of the same, compromise decree Ext. P. 3 dated 9th August, 1965 was passed in that suit. According to the terms of the compromise. Khushal Singh, know appellant, who was defendant in that suit was to remain in possession of the suit land as mortgagee for eight years and thereafter the land could be redeemed by the mortgagors on payment of Rs. 7,500/- . On the basis of the said decree, mutation No. 730 was sanctioned on 29th August, 1970 vide which the sale stood converted into mortgagee in the aforesaid terms. Another mutation No. P. 10 was also sanctioned treating the parties to be mortgagors and mortgagees in terms of the compromise. Thus after the expiry of the said term of 8 years, the present suit was filed for redemption on 2nd Aug., 1979 on payment of Rs. 7,500/- The suit was resisted on behalf of he defendant- appellant on the ground that the suit does not lie as there is no relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee between the parties and the compromise was not binding of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether Mohinder Nath is not competent to act as next friend of minor plaintiff Ravinder Nath ? O. P. D. 2. Whether the suit does not lie as there is no relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee between he parties ? 3. If issue No. 2 is not proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to he redemption of the suit land. If so on what terms ? O. P. P. 4. Whether the compromise as alleged in para 3 of the written statement is not binding upon the defendant ? O. P. P. 4-A Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to special costs u/s. 35-A, C. P. C. ? O. P. P. 5. Relief." All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs except issue No. 4-A and as a result of these findings. The plaintiffs' suit was decreed by way of redemption on payment of Rs. 7,500/- . In appeal filed on behalf of the defendant, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court on all the issues and thus maintained the decree of the trial Court passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has come up in second appeal in this Court.

(3.) The only point urged in this case is that since the compromise entered into between the parties was never got registered, therefore, that was not enforceable between the parties. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the terms of the compromise were never incorporated in the decree. As a matter of fact, according to the earned counsel no decree was passed on the basis of the compromise and as such the plaintiffs' suit should have been dismissed. The argument proceeded that in case the terms of the compromise were never incorporated in the decree itself,. Then exception under clause (vi) f sub-section (2) of. 17 of the Registration Act could not be invoked. In support of his contention he strongly relied upon Fazal Rasul Khan v. Mohd-UI-Nisa, AIR 1944 Lah 394; Umrao Singh v. Nikku Mal Gupta, AIR 1966 Punj 412 and Satish Kumar v. Surinder Kumar, AIR 1970 SC 833.