CHARNA RAM Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Relies on the compromise effected in 1982 and the correction of the Khasra Girdawari sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Siwan in favour of the petitioner. Lakhi Ram's statement dated 16.8.1982 did not fructify as a formal statement compromising the lis into a decree in a suit between Charan Dass (minor) son of Jagga Ram and Lakhi son of Tota Ram. The said proposed compromise took no legal effect in Civil Suit No.566 of 1982. The civil suit was dismissed in default on 12.5.1983. Lakhi Ram took no steps after the dismissal of the suit to revive it or to press that the matter has been settled by the proposed compromise Ex.C1. The statement of Lakhi Ram was only to the effect that the suit may be decreed in terms of Ex.C1. The compromise did not turn into an accomplished fact. Therefore, sons of Lakhi can claim no ownership rights on the property prima facie which would remain subject to evidence led in the suit. They are, therefore, not ex-facie entitled to a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC. Both the Courts below have committed no patent error of jurisdiction or of law or of fact in passing the impugned orders. The learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal vide his order dated 30.5.2014 has upheld the order of the learned trial Court rejecting the injunction application. A prima facie plausible finding has been returned to deny reversal of the order of the learned trial Court under Order 39 Rules 1-2 CPC reasoning rightly that a compromise which is against a public policy and against the law and not consciously accepted by the Court, cannot form the base of obtaining possession of the suit land pending trial.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that successive suits have been filed without disclosing the fact that earlier a compromise had been arrived at. One of the suits was filed by the brother of the plaintiff was withdrawn on the statement that it suffered from a technical defect. That brother has not brought the fresh suit. The other brother is not bound by the actions of his brother. Their claim can be seen independent of each other. However, no opinion is expressed on this issue and the petitioner would be free to press these points before the learned trial Judge.

(3.) No ground warranting interference is made out in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the petition is ordered to be dismissed. However, nothing said in this order will be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case which will remain subject to trial.