V JAMBULAYYA Vs. IRAJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Munsif appears to have looked at a receipt and construed it as a settlement out of court and upon it determined the issue whether the settlement after suit is true, but he did not exhibit it as evidence in the suit or take any other evidence. It is not now alleged that this course was taken by consent of the parties or that the parties agreed that the matter should be disposed of on the construction of the receipt alone.

(2.) The District Judge appears to have seen the receipt and considered that it is not a record of the terms of a settlement between the parties, and holding that the plaintiff should be allowed to prove that the document represented only a partial settlement, he has remanded the suit for rehearing and disposal.

(3.) Before us it is contended that the District Munsif having determined the issue as to the settlement has not disposed of the suit on a preliminary point, and that therefore the District Judge had no power to order a remand.