B RAJA RAJESWARA MUTHURAMALINGA SETHUPATHI AVERGAL, RAJAH OF RAMNAD Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF RAMNAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Ramnad directing the Secretary of State for India in Council to be made a party to the suit which was filed by the Rajah of Ramnad against the Union Board of Ramnad for a declaration that certain streets around his palace belong to him and are not vested in the Union Board Trouble seems to have arisen from the fact that during the survey under the Survey Act these roads were classified as public streets. The suit, however, as appears from the note of the District Munsif, was not a suit under the Survey Act but was a suit by the plaintiff to establish his title to the roads. There was a compromise entered into between the Rajah of Ramnad and the Union Board and this compromise was entered into after a resolution of the Union Board. A joint petition was put in under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code on the 26 of April, 1924, where it was stated that the parties had come to an agreement and that a decree should be passed 111 terms of the razinamah. By that razinamah the defendant Board recognised the ownership of the plaintiff over the lanes A, B and C mentioned in the Commissioner's plan; the plaintiff Avas to allow the public free use of the lanes from 5 A.M. till 9 P.M. for ever; and the plaintiff was given the right to close the lanes except during the hours when the public were allowed access; each party was to bear its own costs. It was prayed that a decree be passed in terms of this razinamah. This petition was put in on the 26 of April but no order was passed on it. It appears from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council that the Government on the 4 of July, 1924, long after this petition was presented, and purporting to act under Section 38 of the Local Boards Act rescinded the resolution of the Union Board to enter into a compromise. On the date the petition to record the compromise came on for hearing, the Secretary of State for India in Council put in a petition to be made a party to the suit and the District Munsif without deciding the petition already filed to record the compromise passed an order making the Secretary of State for India in Council a party to the suit. The present revision petition is filed against that order.

(2.) The contention of Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar for the petitioner is that, under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, the Court was bound to pass a decree in terms of the compromise, such compromise being legal and valid and that it was not competent to the Court to add a party to the proceedings where the original parties terminated the suit by a lawful compromise. Order 23, Rule 3 runs as follows: Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the suit.

(3.) It seems to me to be clear that if this compromise between the Union Board and the plaintiff was a lawful and valid one, the District Munsif had no power to add any party but he had. only power to pass a decree in terms of the compromise.