RAJO MIAN Vs. PURAN MIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiffs against judgment of reversal.

(2.) The substantial question of law to be determined is whether the compromise decree in T.S. No. 4/64 could be annulled by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Deoghar (Revenue Officer) in R.E. Case No. 36/64; in other words whether Sec. 20 of the Bihar Act 14 of 1949 authorised the Revenue Court to evict a person who had come on the land on the basis of a compromise decree of a competent Civil Court, if that compromise was collusive ?

(3.) The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs -appellants contended that the compromise decree in the aforesaid title suit could not be annulled by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Deoghar (Revenue Court) even though it contravened the provisions of Santhal Praganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 or was against public policy.