SARAJUBALA DEVI Vs. OBAIDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree disposing of their suit in accordance with a compromise.

(2.) The plaintiffs are disqualified proprietors and the suit was instituted by them through the Manager of the Court of Wards as their next friend. The suit was for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of certain lands on the allegation that they formed part of the plaintiff's estate. The defendants, amongst other pleas that they took, claimed the lands as appertaining to their own estate. A commissioner was deputed to hold a local investigation. After the report and map of the commissioner wore submitted, there was a talk of compromise between the plaintiffs and defendant 1, the other defendants not being really interested in the suit, the terms of which wore that, so far as the suit lands were concerned, they would be divided between the parties in accordance with the that line, and that certain other char lands, which had newly reformed, and of which neither party had yet taken possession would be divided half and half between the par. ties. The terms of the compromise having been settled between the plaintiffs law superintendent and the defendant's pleader, the suit was adjourned from time to time on joint applications of both the parties from January 1927 till 24 May 1927. On the last mentioned date, defendant 1 filed a petition under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P.C., together with a draft petition of compromise, purporting to have been drawn up as a joint petition on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendant 1. On this application being put in, summons was issued on the Collector and the Manager of the Court of Wards to produce certain documents. On those being produced and marked as exhibits on the admission of the parties, the Subordinate Judge recorded the compromise and disposed of the suit in accordance therewith.

(3.) So far as the recording of the compromise is concerned, the appellants case in the Court below was that the compromise could not be given effect to as it had not received the sanction of the Commissioner. Their case was that the terms were submitted to the Legal Remembrancer, who approved of them with some slight variations, but as it then transpired that the negotiations had proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the newly reformed char lands, which were outside the scope of the suit, were not in the possession of either party, whereas as a matter of fact these lands were in the possession of the plaintiffs, the Government Pleader, who was appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, made a report about the matter to the Commissioner, and on that the Commissioner wrote, in reply, that the compromise might be concluded, so far as the suit lands only are concerned, if such a compromise was accepted by defendant 1.