VISHNU SITARAM AUCHAT Vs. RAMCHANDRA GOVIND JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff sued for a declaration that the plaint property belonged to his judgment-debtor Vinayak and also prayed for setting aside the order passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 147 of 1927.

(2.) The learned First Class Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the matter was compromised between the parties. In the lower Court it was contended that the defendant was under the influence of opium and did not understand the document on which he had made his signature. The learned Judge disbelieved the statement of the defendant and held that the defendant had no interest in the case and was only a nominee of Vinayak Govind, and that the compromise application was written in consultation with Vinayak with the full agreement of the defendant. He further held that the decree could not be passed in respect of all matters dealt with in the compromise application, but the decree could be passed in terms thereof so far as it related to the suit property, and therefore drew up a decree in terms of the application, Exhibit 49.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the appellant, firstly, that the matter was not compromised, that the compromise application was ordered to be filed on August 13,1929, and the case came on before the Court on several occasions but there was not a final agreement between the parties. Secondly, it is contended, relying on the decision in Dooly Chand Srimali V/s. Mohan Lal Srimali (1923) I.L.R. 51 Cal. 432, that as a third person was a party to the compromise, a decree could not be passed in terms of the compromise.