MOHAMAD IDRIS HAIDER Vs. MOHAMMAD HABIBUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a decision of the Second Additional District Judge of Monghyr who on 18-8-1944, directed that a certain compromise be recorded and that a suit, which was brought under the provisions of Section 92, Civil P.C., be decreed in terms of the compromise petition.

(2.) The suit out of which this appeal arises has had a long and chequered career. The suit was filed on 13-6-1935 by five Muhammadans against one other Muhammadan who was described as sajjadanashin and mutwalli of the Khanqah Qasba Bari Ballia. In the plaint it was alleged that there was a public religious and charitable trust to which various properties had been dedicated and that the defendant was in sole charge of the administration of the trust and the trust funds; The plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the defendant had been guilty of acts of mismanagement, misfeasance and breach of trust, that he be removed from his office and a proper person appointed in his place, that a scheme of management be framed and that the defendant be ordered to render accounts. There was also a claim for appointment of a Receiver pendente lite and a claim for costs and incidental relief. The way in which the suit was dealt with at first is set out in a judgment of this Court arising out of a later title suit and dated 19-8-1941 and printed at p. 44 of the paper book.

(3.) By consent of parties the dispute in the suit was referred to arbitration and an award was filed, but it was found that the award dealt with certain matters beyond the scope of the suit. The Judge was disposed to remit the matter to the arbitrator and then a new suggestion was made that a compromise embodying substantially the result of the arbitration be filed and a decree passed in accordance with the compromise A compromise petition was accordingly filed on 11-9-1937 and a decree prepared on 1-10-1987. Thereafter, the plaintiffs brought a suit for a declaration that the terms of the decree and the compromise petition then found on the record of the District Judge's title suit did not represent the true agreement between the parties, that a draft compromise petition had been prepared embodying different terms and a petition had been signed and presented to the Court accordingly, but that the petition had been tampered; with in the interest of the defendant by substituting different pages of type-written matter for some of the pages. That suit was tried by a Mnnsif who found that the allegations, of the plaintiff's were true and his decision on this point was upheld on appeal. The Munsif had allowed an amendment of the plaint in the title suit before him whereby a prayer was added that a certain original petition be substituted for the alleged false petition in the record of the District Judge and a fresh decree prepared accordingly, and he granted this relief.