RAM SARAN Vs. THAKUR SEO PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration that what they describe as a compromise filed by them in a criminal Court is null and void and not binding upon them. Briefly put, the facts are that the appellants are grove holders. The respondents who are their Zamindars, made a report to the police that they had planted some new trees and dug holes in their groves and that, as these groves were used as the site of the weekly market, there was a risk that these actions might give rise to disputes and breaches of the peace. The Sub-Inspector of Police made a report to the Magistrate on which proceedings were started against the appellants under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellants filed a petition containing the alleged compromise. As a matter of fact, this was not a compromise at all but an undertaking given by them to plant no more trees, to remove any new trees that had been planted and to abstain in future from digging holes. This application was filed and the case was later on dismissed apparently without reference to it.

(2.) The first Court appears to have treated this as a compromise dealing with immovable property to the value of more than Rs. 100 which required registration, and granted the appellants a decree on the ground that the document was unregistered. The lower appellate Court held that the application was no more than an undertaking in the form of a petition, which required, neither to be stamped nor registered. The various allegations to the effect that the execution of the application had been obtained through fraud, coercion and undue influence were found by the Court, below to be untrue.

(3.) Clearly the document in question was not a compromise. It was only an undertaking given by the appellants to the Criminal Court with the object of saving themselves from any further action under Section 145. It may be true that the Court took no action on it and decided the case on other grounds, but even so the appellants cannot be allowed to bring a suit, like the present one, to have the undertaking declared of no effect. It is unnecessary to decide whether it is effectual or not. That point can be raised if any other litigation takes place on the subject between the parties. A person is not entitled to give an undertaking to a Criminal Court to abstain from certain action and then to go and file a Civil suit for a declaration that the undertaking given by him was of no effect.