RAM SARUP Vs. HARDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are briefly these:

(2.) There is an enclosure No.43, in which there are, it seems, several rooms or houses. The appellant who was the plaintiff in the Court below, has been found to be the owner of the entire enclosure. Two of the rooms or buildings in this enclosure are the subject-matter of the suit. In a portion of this enclosure, the defendants and their predecessors were living. It has been found by the Court below that their possession was permissive. The parties, it appears, quarreled and fought over the possession of the defendants and one of the parties on the side of the defendants sustained grievous hurt. There was a criminal case and a compromise was arrived at on the 5 of June 1918. It was embodied on a paper bearing stamp-duty of eight-annas and was not registered. It was stated in the compromise-deed that room No. 126 was given up by the defendants and that they were given room No. 129 in lieu of the same. It was further stated and agreed that the defendants would continue in possession of room No.128 as before. The finding is that on this compromise being entered into, the prosecution was dropped and evidently the permission of the Court was obtained to the compounding of the offence. For the compromise was filed in the Criminal Court. Just on the last day of the expiry of three years, the plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of possession of the rooms Nos. 128 and 129. He pleaded that the compromise had been obtained by the exercise of undue influence. But that point has been given up in appeal in this Court. The only point that has been argued is this. The compromise was really a document by which the plaintiff transferred his title to the property in favour of the defendants. The value of the property has been found roughly, by Court below, to be about Es. 500. Such a transfer could only be "effected by mean's of a registered document under the provision of the Registration Act, Section 17 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The document being unregistered it really conveyed no title to the defendants and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get back what was really his own property.

(3.) The Courts below dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming the property back, although the title still remains with him.