WASSAN SINGH AND ORS Vs. LAKHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal had been filed by the defendants against the concurrent judgments granting decree for recovery of possession. The plaintiffs have contended that they were mortgagees in possession of property, but the defendants had usurped their possession and forcibly entered upon the lands on a false pretext that they had purchased the equity of redemption from the mortgagor Achharo. The plaintiff contended that there was no such sale by Achharo and if it was propounded by the defendants, it must have been forged. The defendants pleaded that they had purchased the property on 26.08.1980 from Achharo and redeemed the mortgage. The two courts held that the alleged sale deed was not true but a forgery and the plea of redemption was false. The suit was decreed by trial Court and the judgment was maintained by the appellate Court.

(2.) During the pendency of the second appeal, a compromise was reported to have been made with the plaintiffs which was undated, under the terms of which, the plaintiffs had purportedly received Rs. 5 lakh from the first defendant and they were willing to have the suit dismissed. The compromise was signed by the first defendant and by one Jaspal Singh terming himself as a power of attorney for all the plaintiffs. The appellants had filed the compromise memo for recording the same under Order 23 Rule 3 on 10.08.1999. The Court received it on 13.08.1999 and disposed of the appeal in terms of the alleged compromise, recording the presence of the first appellant and Jaspal Singh, the alleged power of attorney of the plaintiffs.

(3.) The present application was filed by the plaintiffs to revoke the compromise in CM No.3325-C of 2000 contending that they had never given any authority to Jaspal Singh to enter into compromise and that the power of attorney said to have been executed on 30.03.1992 did not contain their signatures. They also contended that no consideration had been paid, as falsely recited in the compromise. Since the application was filed post decree, the Court called for objections from the appellants and directed the impleadment of Jaspal Singh on 14.05.2002 and passed an elaborate order framing issues for consideration. The Court was of the view that the genuineness of the compromise will have to be ascertained on the following questions:-