GIRDHARAN PRASAD MISSIR Vs. BHOLI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in review by the respondents in a Letters Patent Appeal who ask us to vacate the compromise decree passed in that appeal on 16th August 1940, on the ground that in fact they had not consented to the terms of the compromise and that the advocates who appear, ed for them had consented to those terms against their instructions.

(2.) The subject-matter of the litigation which had given rise to the Letters Patent Appeal was 1 bigha 15 dhurs of raiyati land in village Narainpur appertaining to khata No. 37. This land consisted of plots Nos. 457 and 465 which originally belonged to one Mt. Dulari Kuer. Dulari Kuer mortgaged plot No. 457 to defendant 7 for Rs. 25 and plot No. 465 to defendant 8 for Rs. 40. The present petitioners subsequently purchased from defendants 9 and 10, who are alleged to be the daughters of Mt. Dulari Kuer, the two disputed plots and some other lands for a sum of Rs. 200 on 25 May 1936, and subsequently instituted a suit for the redemption and recovery of possession of the disputed plots against defendants 7 and 8 to whom Dulari Kuer had mortgaged the land and also impleaded in the suit the appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal, who were described in the plaint as defendants first party, as they had purchased the land subsequently by a registered sale deed from defendants 7 and 8 and thereafter put up certain structures and machinery upon it and also constructed a railway siding thereon. Their case was that defendants 7 and 8 had not the full right of ownership and could not transfer the land to the defendants first party. On the other hand the defence in the suit was that the land originally belonged to one Jadhubans Gir, but as he had no wife or issue, he had surrendered the land to the landlord and there, after the land had been settled by the landlord with defendants 7 and 8, the vendors of defendants first party.

(3.) The first Court decreed the plaintiffs suit but the decree was reversed in appeal and the plaintiffs prayer for recovery of possession of the land and the demolition of the structure standing thereupon was refused. A decree, however, was passed in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendants first party to pay them a sum of Rs. 210-8-0 as the value of the land, the appellate Court observing that as the plaintiffs had acted maliciously, they were not entitled to any cost. The plaintiffs thereupon preferred a second appeal to this Court and the learned Judge who heard the appeal set aside the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and passed a preliminary decree for redemption in accordance with Order 34, Rule 7. Then there was a Letters Patent Appeal in which a consent decree was passed in the following terms: If the defendants first party pay to the plaintiffs within a period of two months from to-day a sum of Rs. 5500 the plaintifis claim will stand dismissed in its entirety. On the other hand, if the defendants fail to pay the plaintiffs the said sum within the said period this appeal will stand dismissed and the decree of the learned Single Judge affirmed. The said sum of Rs. 5500 must be deposited in this Court within the stated period.