MT SHAH JAHAN BEGAM Vs. GHULAM RABANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against her by the plaintiff. The parties entered into a compromise on which a decree was passed. The trial Court's order was: The parties have come to terms. Suit is decreed in the terms of the compromise which, shall be reproduced in the decree. Costs on, parties.

(2.) Against this decree an appeal was filed under Order 43(m), Civil P.C., by the defendant. The chief grounds, taken by her in the memorandum of appeal were: (1) Because the learned Munsif was wrong, in not recording the so-called compromise and in not enquiring whether the compromise was acceptable to the appellant and (2) because the so-called compromise was effected without consent of the appellant and was not binding on her.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge of Agra found that the trial Court had omitted to order the recording of the compromise but the compromise was, made with the consent of the appellant. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that there was no reason to interfere with the decree of the trial Court. The compromise, as a matter of fact, was verified by the appellant's counsel who had full authority to compromise the suit. The parties had taken one day's time for the-compromise and the compromise was filed the next day. The appellant's son, who was living with the appellant, was looking after the case in the trial Court. The learned Subordinate Judge has observed: From the evidence on the record it is clear that the appellant's case in the trial Court was managed by her own son. The son and his mother (the appellant) live together in Agra. One whole day was taken by the parties to consider the compromise, before it was filed on the following day.