MAHABIR SINGH Vs. DEBI CHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for the following relief: It may be held by the Court that the land mentioned in Sch A is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and that the defendants have no concern therewith, a perpetual injunction may be issued to the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's proprietary possession of the land aforesaid, and if by reason of the said interference it be proved that the plaintiff is cut of possession, then, in that case, instead of the said relief, a decree for possession of the said land may be passed in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants; or any other relief, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be deemed just by the Court, may be granted

(2.) The plaintiff and the defendants being co-sharers, during the pendency of a partition proceedings in the revenue Court, several objections were taken by the plaintiff. The objection taken was that the partition Amin had by a mistake included the land mentioned in Sch. A in the defendants share. The plaintiff and the defendants by a compromise of the 20 March 1918, agreed that the plaintiff should have the land in Sch. A and the defendants the land in Sch. B; but by some mistake, when the entries in the partition papers were made, this compromise was lost sight of and an application for correction of the numbers was summarily rejected by the revenue Court. The plaintiff alleged that thereafter the defendants have been trying to interfere with the proprietary possession of the land by the plaintiff. Upon these allegations the plaintiff claimed the relief I have already set out. The defence of the defendants was that the land in Sch. A, viz., Plot No. 1752/13, was all along owned and possessed by them and that the plaintiff was wrong in alleging otherwise; that no compromise was made and the Defendant No. 1 was not authorized to act on behalf of the other defendants and the Court diet not accept any such compromise; that the claim was barred by time besides for want of title; and that Section 233(k) of Act 3 of 1901 barred the claim. The Court of first instance, among other issues, framed the following two: Whether there was any valid compromise between the parties whereby the plaintiff got the plots mentioned in list A of the plaint, and whether the claim is barred by Section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act.

(3.) The learned Munsif came to the conclusion with reference to the two issues set out above that there was a valid: compromise between the parties and that the plaintiff was given in possession of Plot No. 1752/13 and the defendants were given possession of Plots Nos. 1704 and 1706. He further found that compromise had been acted on between the parties. He also held that Defendant No. 1 was the head of the family consisting of all the four defendants. He refuted the contention of the defendants that the suit was barred by Section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act, and decreed the plaintiff's claim for a perpetual injunction in respect of Plot No. 1752/13 with costs.