MOHINDER Vs. BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment would dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1595 and 1628 of 1987 as both the appeals are between the same parties. However, I would pick up Regular Second Appeal No. 8 of 1987 in the first instance as the decision of this appeal would have direct bearing on the decision to be arrived at in the other appeal, that is R. S. A. No. 1595 of 1987.

(2.) THIS litigation to start with commenced between three brothers namely, Bakshi, Pakhar and Mohinder appellants sons of Naraina. Mohinder, admittedly, purchased 121 kanals 9 Marias of land from the Central Government for a sum of Rupees 8500/ -. A mutation of exchange of the aforesaid land of Mohinder was entered and sanctioned by virtue of which the land stood transferred in favour of Bakshi and Pakhar in lieu of houses and a tour belonging to Bakshi and Pakhar. The mutation of exchange is No. 685 dated 31. 8. 1963. In consequence of the aforesaid mutation, the appellant stood divested of his ownership rights of the land measuring 121 Kanals 9 Marias. The mutation of exchange gave rise to the filing of a suit by the appellant wherein exchange of his land measuring 121 Kanals 9 Marias was challenged on the ground that he was forced to make a statement before the Revenue Officer admitting the exchange. In that suit a compromise was entered into by Jagar attorney of Bakshi and Pakhar who happened to be living in Singapore at the relevant time. According to the compromise decree dated 23. 1. 1969 Mohinder was made owner of 40 kanals of land. The compromise decree was challenged by Bakshi and heirs of Pakhar by way of filing the present suit No. 385 of 1981 which has given rise to the filing of R. S. A. No. 1628 of 1987.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs in this suit (No. 385 of 1981) is that they never authorised their attorney to compromise the suit and, therefore, they were the owners of 40 Kanals of land and were entitled to a decree for possession of the aforesaid land. Defendant-appellant asserted in the written statement that he became the owner of 40 Kanals of land on account of a compromise decree which was valid. On the basis of the pleas of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :