DEENA NATH BANERJEE Vs. GOVIND SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision Petition arises out of a compromise entered into between plaintiff No. 2 on one side and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the other. The compromise was challenged by defendant No. 2, Deena Nath Banerjee. The court below held that the compromise was valid and enforceable under Order 23, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The compromise petition is Annexure 1 to the civil revision petition. On a perusal of the compromise petition (Annexure 1), it is clear that the compromise petition was filed on behalf of plaintiff No. 2, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. It is relevant to quote the topical portion of the compromise petition which is as follows:

(2.) It is, therefore, clear that the compromise petition was filed in respect of the compromise entered into between plaintiff No. 2 on the one hand and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand. The compromise petition was duly signed by plaintiff No. 2 as well as by Dinanath Banerjee (defendant No. 2). The compromise petition also bears the signature of Deomuni Das, an authorised representative of Granth Saheb. The advocates of the above -mentioned persons also signed the compromise petition. Defendant No. 2 also mentioned the date on which he signed the compromise petition.

(3.) Before entering into the compromise, an agreement was entered into between defendant No. 1 (Granth Saheb) and defendant No. 2 Dinanath Banerjee. The agreement (Ext. 7) dated 2nd February, 1978 was a registered one. By this agreement, Dinanath Banerji (defendant No. 2) delivered possession of the suit properties along with other properties to Deomuni Das, authorised representative of defendant No. 1. This fact is mentioned in paragraph No. 13 of the compromise petition. Paragraph No. 14 of the compromise petition is as follows: