DAYAL SINGH Vs. RUKMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Dayal Singh, plaintiff ­ appellant, against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by Dayal Singh, plaintiff, was also dismissed by the learned District Judge.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that Harnam Singh and Dayal Singh, plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants, with the allegations that the plaintiffs were the joint owners in possession along with the defendants in respect of the suit land. It was alleged that in the year 1981, a suit was filed titled as Amar Singh and others Vs. Anokhi Ram and others and the same was decided by Rajgarh Court on 29.3.1988 on the basis of a compromise. It was alleged that the said compromise was null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, on the ground that the said compromise was based on the statement of the counsel only; the counsel was never given any authority to enter into such compromise; the property was divided between Amar Singh, Anokhi Ram and Narata Ram, but they had no right to divide the property amongst themselves and that the compromise was the result of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion committed by Amar Singh, Anokhi Ram and Narata Ram. It was alleged that the said decree passed on such compromise was not binding on the plaintiffs and the mutation attested on the basis of the said decree was also of no consequence. It was alleged that the plaintiffs came to know about the said compromise decree only a month prior to the filing of the present suit (which was filed on 17.6.1994). Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought a decree for declaration to the effect that the Civil Court decree dated 29.3.1988 was null and void and that the plaintiffs were owner in possession of the land measuring 5 Biswas and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the suit land.

(3.) AFTER hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that the compromise in question could not be declared as in-valid, merely for non preparation of a separate compromise deed. The appeal filed by Dayal Singh, one of the plaintiffs, was dismissed by the learned District Judge, upholding the findings of the learned trial Court, holding that the present suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3-A C.P.C. Feeling aggrieved against the same, Dayal Singh, plaintiff, filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court.