KAHAN CHAND Vs. GYAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal had come up before this Court on an earlier occasion, when, as per my learned predecessor's order dated 9-6-1953, the lower appellate Court was directed to take action under Order 23, Rule 3 and to submit its findings to this Court. In pursuance of that order, the Senior Subordinate Judge of Mahasu has made an inquiry into the alleged compromise. His findings are:-- Firstly, that the parties arrived at a, compromise and that its terms are embodied in Ex. P. A. Secondly, that the compromise was lawful, and, thirdly, that the compromise did not need registration or to be stamped. In view of his findings, the Senior Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that the suit had been "completely adjusted." Thereupon, he goes on to remark:-

(2.) Objections to the report of the lower appellate Court have been filed by the respondent, but not by the appellant. The appellant, however, was allowed, during the course of arguments, to show cause against the report of the Senior Subordinate Judge.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length. As far as the factum of compromise is concerned, I am of the opinion that the Court below has rightly held that the compromise deed, Ex. P. A, was voluntarily executed by the parties and that the plea of undue influence, set up by Gyan Chand, has not been substantiated. The terms of the compromise, as set forth in Ex. P. A, were read over to me several times during the course of arguments. I again agree with the Senior Subordinate Judge that there is nothing in this compromise, which can be regarded as anything but lawful within the meaning of Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C.