SHEODHAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. RAMDEO PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of the respondents in First Appeal No. 145 of 1928 for the amendment of the decree made in the appeal. The appeal arose put of a suit for partition, instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge by the appellant Ramdeo Prasad Singh and others. The petitioner, Sheodhar Prasad Singh filed a written statement in the suit objecting to the partition. on the ground that there had been a previous private partition. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge and the appeal had been filed in this Court by the plaintiff.

(2.) During the pendency of the appeal a compromise was admittedly arrived at by the parties whereby the petitioner agreed to give certain piece of land in the basti portion of the village to the plaintiff and also a right of way over a small strip of land in exchange for a piece of agricultural land which the plaintiff agreed to give to the petitioner. It is stated that a petition of compromise stating the real terms arrived at between the parties was written out and an affidavit was sworn but the petition could not be filed in Court on the date on which it was written and sworn and the petitioner had to go away on the same day to Gaya leaving the original petition in the custody of Ramdeo Prasad Singh.

(3.) The allegation then is that Ramdeo Prasad Singh altered certain pages of the petition of compromise as originally written and sworn to and changed some of the terms and the changed petition was filed in Court on the 26 February 1929, and as the petitioner did not know of these changes the decree was ordered to be drawn up in terms of that petition. The petitioner alleges that after some time he came to know that the petition as filed in Court did not contain the actual terms arrived at between the parties, but there was some alteration and on further inquiry he learnt that the piece of land which the plaintiff was to give to the petitioner-defendant and which was agreed to be 1 bigha 8 cottahs 10 dhurs out of plot No. 398 had been altered into 8 cottahs 10 dhurs only, omitting the figure of 1 bigha.