LAWS(RAJ)-1958-6-4

BALUKAM Vs. KHAJU KHAN

Decided On June 02, 1958
BALUKAM Appellant
V/S
KHAJU KHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision has been filed against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 23. 1. 1958 upholding the order of the trial court dated 24. 5. 1957 in a case relating to redemption of mortgage.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. Khaju Khan, opposite party brought a suit for redemption of the disputed land against Balu Ram, applicant, on 28. 6. 1956 in the court of the S. D. O. Fatehpur with the allegations that on 25. 6. 1954 the land was mortgaged in lieu of Rs. 390/- with interest at 1 P. M. for a period of 2 years and that after the expiry of two years Balu Ram was refusing the redemption of the mortgage. Baluram admitted the mortgage but pleadqd that he had been in possession of the disputed land even prior to the creation of the mortgage; that he had acquired rights over the land in dispute; and that Khaju Khan had no right to seek redemption. Balu Ram after filing his written statement in the trial court applied before the Collector for a transfer of the case from that court to some other court. This application for transfer was rejected by the Collector on 5-111956, On 9. 11. 1956 the parties put up a compromise before the Collector which was placed on record after verification. When the record reached the trial Court Balu Ram contended that the compromise referred to above should be accepted and the case should be decided in accordance therewith After hearing the parties the learned trial court relying on the decision of the Board in Har Govind vs. Narain Das decided on 5. 2. 1957 (Case No 49 Sawai Madhopur of 1955, 1957 R. R. D. 101) held that the compromise could not be regarded as lawful and hence could not be acted upon. He, therefore, directed the parties to adduce their evidence on the issues framed in the case. Balu Ram challenged this order in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner who agreed with the views of the trial court and rejected the appeal. Hence this revision.