RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. LILU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's contention is that he was a minor when decree in Civil Suit No. 222-C of 1989 was passed. His father Birkha had no right to suffer that decree in favour of Lilu Ram respondent with regard to the agricultural land, which is a property of his joint family. Hence he prays that Lilu Ram be restrained from alienating the suit property till the decision of the suit filed by him against his father, mother and Lilu Ram.

(2.) PETITIONER 's learned counsel, relying on Kulraj Singh Paul v. Smt. Ranjit Kaur and another, 1982(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 606 : AIR 1983 Punjab and Haryana 299, contended that Lilu Ram respondent has placed certain documents on record alongwith his affidavit, but at the revisional stage additional evidence cannot be produced. He further contended that as Lilu Ram respondent has tried to state that Civil Suit No. 289-C of 1989 was compromised by his parents, himself and Lilu Ram, therefore, this decree is binding on the plaintiff. He also contended that when Civil Suit No. 289-C of 1989 was filed, the plaintiff was a minor. Under Order 32 Rule 7(1) and 7(1-A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, no permission was sought from the Court to enter into that compromise. It is the duty of the Court to safeguard the interests of the minor. Hence even if Civil Suit No. 289-C of 1989 is decreed between the parties on the basis of their compromise, it does not bind the plaintiff who was a minor at that time.

(3.) RESPONDENT 's learned counsel further contended that earlier also the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 173 of 1992 against Lilu Ram, wherein ex- parte stay order was obtained by the plaintiff, which was vacated on March 17, 1992. The plaintiff has filed this suit on October 8, 1993, but in this case he has not disclosed the facts that in Civil Suit No. 173 of 1992 filed by him earlier with regard to the suit land, stay though granted at the initial stage was vacated on March 17, 1992. He contended that non- disclosure of relevant material documents with a view to obtain advantage amounts to fraud. To buttress his contention he has relied on S.P. Chenqalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1. He further contended that in this plaint the plaintiff has not pleaded any fact with regard to the compromise recorded in civil Suit No. 289-C of 1989, wherein this plaintiff was also a party. Relying on Sajjan Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1995(3) AISJ 260, he contended that a person who claims an equitable relief must approach the Court with clean hands. Since the plaintiff-petitioner is guilty of concealment of facts, he is not entitled to be heard even on merits.