AYYAGIRI VEERASALINGAM Vs. KOOVUR BASIVI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a preliminary objection taken to the entertainment of the second appeal on two grounds:-One ground is that it is practically a second appeal preferred against the order of the District Court which was passed in appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge recording a compromise under Order XXIII, Rule 3, and that such a second appeal is prohibited by Order XLIII Rule (m) and Section 104, Clause (2) -The short answer to this is that there was no appeal to the District Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge recording the compromise nor is the present second appeal against any order of the District Court passed in appeal against any such order of the Subordinate Judge. The appeal and second appeal are respectively from the decree of the Subordinate Judge passed in accordance with the compromise agreement after recording it and from the decree of the District Judge on appeal against the Subordinate Judge s decree.

(2.) The next contention is that Section 96, Clause (3) prohibits an appeal from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties. The answer to this objection is that the decree itself was not passed by the consent of parties but the Court held that there was a consent of the parties to the terms of the compromise agreement which was recorded and it passed a decree in accordance therewith notwithstanding the objection of one of the parties.

(3.) The preliminary objection fails.