GADAWARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A pre-emption application was filed on behalf of Sudama Tiwary with respect to a piece of land which were transferred on 12.7.1979 to Chandrika Devi. The pre-emption application was dismissed for default on 28.1.1980 and was later restored. Again the pre-emption application was dismissed for not depositing the cost imposed by the D.C.L.R. in lieu of restoration of the pre-emption application. The pre-emptor filed an appeal numbered as 40 of 1982-83 and 59 of 1988-89.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the appeal the parties compromised the matter and a sale deed was executed by the vendee Chandrakali Devi in favour of Sudama Tiwary on 5.7.1983. The pre-emptor withdrew 10% of the amount deposited in the court of the D.C.L.R. Thereafter, a compromise petition was filed on 14.7.1983 which is Annexure 4 to this application. However, it appears that the appeal remained pending and Sudama Tiwary died in the mean time. Notices were issued to the heirs of Sudama Tiwary. The heirs appeared and inspected the records. However, they did not file their appearance before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector dismissed the appeal on 17.4.1990 on the ground that no body had appeared on behalf of the appellant and as such the appeal abated. LEARNED counsel submits that a compromise petition was filed before the appellate authority after the death of Sudama Tiwary on17.7.1989 which ought to have been taken into consideration by the appellate authority while considering the appeal.

(3.) THERE is another aspect of the matter. Should the court allow parties to take a stand and then resile on the stand taken? The principles of probate and reprobate envisage, that once a party takes a stand, which end in a compromise, and also acts on the compromise, such a party cannot be allowed to take a contrary stand, unless the earlier stand is against all known principles of law.