SODHI MOHINDER SINGH Vs. SHRIMATI RAJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order recording a compromise in a dispute relating to property and other matters which arose primarily between husband and wife.

(2.) In March, 1962 Shrimati Rajinder Kaur wife of Sodhi Mohinder Singh filed a suit against her husband the principal defendant impleading two of sons, namely, Baljitinder Singh and Manjitinder Singh also as defendants. In the suit she claimed rendition of accounts with regard to mesne profits etc. in respect of the land, the area of which was 3689 kanals and 1 marla. She also prayed that she be declared to be the owner of the suit property. In paragraph 12 of the plaint it was pleaded that the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property by virtue of gifts made by the husband because he did not have any son and he wanted to marry another wife and he decided gift the property to her. It was alleged that the husband had been managing the land in suit on her behalf and had not paid her any profits received from the produce of the land. It was stated, inter alia, that on 25th January, 1960 defendant No. 1 (the husband) had instituted an application for divorce against the plaintiff in which an order was made by the Court on 7th December, 1960 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act that she should paid expenses to the extent of Rs. 700/- and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per mensum with effect from 13th May, 1960. Defendant No. 1 filed an appeal to this Court against that order but the same was dismissed. It was asserted that defendant No. 1 had not paid even a rupee towards the aforesaid amount. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement pleading, inter alia that the gifts which had been made in respect of the suit land were purely benami transactions. It was further pleaded by him that according to the orders of the Court in the petition for dissolution of marriage the plaintiff had been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per mensum and not Rs. 350/- and that the amount of expenses had been fixed at Rs. 400/- and not Rs. 700/-. He also claimed that he was the owner of the property and denied other allegations made by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit the parties came to a settlement and on 24th April, 1963 the Court recorded the following order :-

(3.) Mr. Jagan Nath Seth, who appears for the plaintiff respondent, contends that no appeal is competent in the present case as the parties settled their disputes amicably, and there was no contest about the terms of the compromise in the Court below. He has relied on a Bench decision of this Court in Amarnath Radha Ram V/s. Sm. Matan, 1954 AIR(P&H) 259, in which it was held by Khosla J. and Falshaw J.(as he then was) that no appeal would lie against an order recording a compromise where there was no contest at the time between the parties regarding the recording of the compromise. In such a case the proper remedy of the aggrieved party is either to appeal against the decree passed on the compromise or to reopen the matter in the trial Court either by way of review or otherwise. This decision is binding on me and I must hold that the appeal is not competent. Mr. Ganga Parshad has sought to challenge the correctness of this decision and has relied on decisions of other Courts, namely Mathura Parshad Phool Chand V/s. Parmanand Thakur Das, 1960 AIR(MP) 161Bansidhar Estate Collieries and Industries Ltd. V/s. The State, 1959 AIR(Pat) 319and Provat Kumar Majumdar V/s. Santosh Kumar Majumdar, 1955 1 ILR(Cal) 461, in which he says a contrary view has been taken. As I am bound to follow the Bench decision of this Court, I must hold that the appeal against the order recording the compromise in the present case is altogether incompetent and must fail on that ground alone.