INDRAJ SINGH Vs. KOMAL RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for leave to appeal to their Lordships of the Privy Council against the decision of the Bench of this Court consisting of Findlay, J.C., and Macnair, A.J.C., dated 14th September 1927, in Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 1926. That decision dismissed the appeal of the present applicant, defendant R.B. Indraj Singh, and confirmed the decree of the District Judge, by which the alleged compromise evidenced by P. 1 was enforced as between the parties to the suit.

(2.) AS is apparent from the record in Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 1926, the two Judges, who constituted the Bench, differed as to whether the argument evidenced by P. 1 represented a final contract or not. The Judges, however, held that as they differed in the matter, the question involved was, in reality, a question of law and, therefore, the finding of the first Court on this point was confirmed. The Judges are further of opinion that, assuming the agreement to be a binding one, the lower Court had exercised a due discretion in the matter and that it became unnecessary to refer the case to a third Judge under Section 98, Sub-section (2), Civil P.C.

(3.) ON the second point urged on behalf of the applicant, however, we are of opinion that a substantial question of law does arise - question which has not been considered by the Bench of this Court. That question is whether, having regard to the terms of Section 21(g), Specific Relief Act, any discretion was left in the first Court to grant a decree for specific performance. It is obvious that this question entirely escaped the notice of the first Court, but, nevertheless, it seems to us to be one which necessarily arises on the facts of the case.