KUSUM KUMARI Vs. KISHORILAL MARWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1911 Thakur Pratap Narain Deo of Lachhmipur, the husband of the appellant judgment-debtor, executed a mortgage to secure a loan of Rs. 1,00,000.

(2.) In 1928 the suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted to recover the mortgage debt and interest thereon. In view of the fact that the mortgaged properties are situated partly in the district of the Santal Parganas and in view of the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Santal Parganas Regulation (III of 1872), the claim for interest was confined to Rupees 1,00,000. On 6 June 1928 the parties filed a petition of compromise praying that the suit should be decreed in terms of the petition for Rs. 1,38,804-0-9. This amount was made up as follows: To this was added the costs amounting to Rs. 3872.8.0 : Total Rs. 1,38,804.0-9.

(3.) The petition also provided for interest pendente lite and future interest. After this petition has been filed the judgment-debtor objected to the suit being decreed in terms of the compromise. The objection however was withdrawn on 21 January 1930, and an order directing the compromise to be recorded was passed on 28 February 1930. From that order the judgment-debtor appealed to this Court, which remitted to the Court below an issue for its determination. In the High Court the order directing the compromise to be recorded was attacked on two grounds: first on the ground of fraud; and secondly on the ground that the compromise contravened the provisions of Section 6 of the Regulation. This Court held that there was no substance in the allegation of fraud; but remitted to the lower Court the other question, viz. whether the terms of the compromise contravened the Regulation.