SURJUG SARAN LAL Vs. DUKHIT MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The plaintiffs case is that the tenants are Dukhit, Ram Autar, and Ramyad and that on a compromise arrived at in a former suit, they agreed to pay the somewhat considerable rent of Rs. 77 odd for 6 bighas and 24 seers a maund on the produce of the rest of the land. The suit has been dismissed and the plaintiffs appeal.

(2.) The first point taken is that as the decree which embodied the compromise has not been set aside, it is still binding on the parties. We think that this contention must be upheld. It is not apparently disputed that the three defendants were parties to the former suit. It was found by the Court of first instance that Ram Autar entered into the compromise without the knowledge of the other two. But the Munsif has not considered the fact that they raised no objection to it. A party to a suit must be presumed to know what is the result of it, when it is not suggested that he was ignorant of its existence. Even if the actual compromise was entered into by Ram Autar alone, his brothers must have asked him what had happened in the suit and if they did not object, that in itself renders it very difficult to accept the theory of fraud. Of course, the defendants could show that the decree had been obtained by fraud, without asking to have it set aside, and that would be a finding of fact with which we could not interfere. But the Munsif himself does not find that the decree was obtained by fraud against Ram Autar and the learned District Judge comes to no finding on the point. He recites the Munsif s finding and adds: "Apart from the above, there is, I think, another very strong ground for holding that the compromise was illegal and ineffective" but he does not say whether he agrees with the Munsif s finding. Later on, he says: "It is very doubtful how far it (the compromise) can bind Dukhit and Rampal. On the whole, therefore, I am inclined to attach very little importance to it." This is not a finding of fraud.

(3.) A point much discussed in the Courts below was whether the three respondents were the original tenants of the land or whether, as they assert, their father, Imrit, who was no party to the compromise, was interested in it. Reliance was placed on a certain tiskhana paper, the admissibility of which has been attacked. But as Imrit is now dead and has been succeeded by the respondents, these questions no longer arise.