MONI RAM Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two appeals (Regular Second Appeal No. 119 of 1954) and Second Appeal from order No. 7 of 1954) and the question involved in both the cases is the same as they arise out of the same proceedings.

(2.) Kali Datt and Kesho Ram brought a suit for mandatory injunction against Hari Chand for the removal of a construction on an area of land measuring 16 biswas on the ground that the land belonged to the Shivala and was meant for the use of the general public [rifa-i-am]. On the 6th December, 1951, this suit was decreed. Kesho Ram had, during the proceedings before the trial Court, died and Muni Ram was brought on record as his legal representative. An appeal was taken against the decree in which Kesho Ram was shown as a party, but as in the meanwhile the decree had been amended by bringing Muni Ram on the record as a plaintiff, another appeal was filed on the 21st August, 1952 and on the 5th November, 1952 the appeal previously filed was dismissed as being infructuous. A power of attorney in favour of Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Pleader, and Mr. Jogi Das, Advocate, dated the 29th April, 1952 on behalf of Muni Ram was filed in the appeal which was dismissed as being infructuous.

(3.) The appeal which was brought against the amended decree came up for hearing before the Senior Subordinate Judge on the 21st October, 1953 and Mr. Jogi Das and Mr. Jyoti Parshad are shown as representing respondent No. 1 i.e., Kali Datt, although it is then stated that "on behalf of the respondents an application has been made. * * *". A proposal was made in regard to a compromise and it was ultimately agreed to by counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jogi Das, the purport of which was that the respondents, i.e. the plaintiffs will pay to the defendant-appellant such sum of money as will be determined by Messrs Lachhu Mal and Jogi Das who were appearing for the parties and which is acceptable to the Court. For this purpose the two Advocates were to go to the spot and whatever amount was determined and if it was accepted by the Court the respondents were to pay it there and then and on its payment the appeal would be4 dismissed and otherwise it would be allowed. Before this contingency could arise Muni Ram appeared and he stated that he had never authorised anyone to make any statement on his behalf and a date was fixed on which date none of the respondents appeared and the learned Senior Subordinate Judge held that this was a completed contract and passed a decree in terms of the compromise. Two appeals have been brought one against the decree and the other against the order recording the compromise and it is not necessary to decide whether the two appeals were necessary.