BHIRGUNATH PRASAD SINGH Vs. MTANNAPURNA DAI SIJUARIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be decided in this appeal is whether it has been preferred in contravention of an agreement arrived at between the parties on 28 July 1933. The respondent is admittedly the mukarraridar of 12 annas share in village, Kujap under a lease which was executed on 8 October 1898 by one Paras Nath Singh a predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. Under the lease a sum of Rs. 1,275 was payable by the lessee as the annual rent and Rs. 111 3-0 was payable as cess. It was also provided that if there was a default on the part of the lessee in payment of three consecutive instalments of rent the lessor would be entitled to re-enter. The suit out; of which this appeal arises was instituted by the appellant to eject the respondent on the allegation that there was such a default and also to recover the arrears of rent and cess.

(2.) The cess was claimed not at the rate of Rs. 111-3-0 which was payable under the lease but at the rate of Rs. 160. The suit was disposed of by the Subordinate Judge of Gaya on 21 July 1930 partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendant. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to rent and cess at the rates claimed but his prayer for ejectment was refused. A decree was drawn up in terms of the judgment on 24 July 1933 and on 27 July 1933 it was signed by the Subordinate Judge. On 28 July the parties jointly filed a petition in the Court below to the following effect: (1) That the dispute between the parties as raised in the salt has been settled by the decision of this Court as per judgment dated 21 July 1933. (2) That the parties to the suit accept the aforesaid decision as binding upon them and on that basis Rs. 4,422-12-6 is due from the defendant to the plaintiff as shown in the decree. (S) That the defendant has paid the aforesaid sum of Rs. 4,422-12-6 out of Court and the plaintiff hereby acknowledges receipt of the same. (4) That the decree is thus fully satisfied and a note of the same may be ordered to be made in the proper register. (5) That in token of the receipt the plaintiff has put down his signature herein below. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that full satisfaction of the decree may be ordered to be noted.

(3.) Now the question to be decided is whether by the terms of the agreement between the parties which had been incorporated in this petition the plaintiff had contracted himself out of his right to appeal and if so, whether there is anything to prevent this Court from giving effect to the agreement. It is true that it has not been expressly stated in the petition that the plaintiff shall not appeal from the judgment of the trial Court, but there can be no doubt that what the parties had agreed to among themselves was that the decision of the Subordinate Judge should be regarded as a final adjudication of the rights of the parties, and it was upon this basis that the defendant made a prompt payment of the sum which had been awarded by the decree to the plaintiff.