K M KRISHNA KURUP Vs. AVEERAN KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the petitioner before me. He filed S.C.S. No. 124 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirur to recover a sum of Rs. 32-3-0 being the purappad (rent) and revenue due to the plaintiff from the defendant, a tenant. When the suit was pending the parties compromised the matter in dispute in the suit and also other connected matters. The compromise petition was signed and put into Court. The defendant, however, objected to a decree being passed in terms of the compromise on the grounds that he did not sign the compromise petition and that the compromise contained unlawful and illegal terms. The learned District Munsif raised two points for consideration. 1. Whether the defendant has signed the alleged compromise petition? and

(2.) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree in accordance with the compromise? 2. On the first issue the learned District Munsif recorded a finding in the affirmative and found that the defendant did sign the alleged compromise petition. He, however, went on to discuss point No. 2 observing that matters which were not concerned in the suit were also considered by the compromise, that the compromise contained terms which did not relate to the suit, since the suit was merely for rent and revenue and that there was a condition in the compromise, that the 1 defendant should execute a kychit and the kychit should also contain definite provisions with regard to the purappad and revenue. In discussing this question the learned District Munsif remarked that the defendant being an illiterate man, the terms of the compromise should have been explained to him and that it had not been, shown that the defendant knew how the amount mentioned was arrived at and that all the terms were not proved to have been explained to him. In this view he rejected the application, to record the compromise, The plaintiff has accordingly come before me in revision.

(3.) It is clear when once the defendant disputed his signature to the compromise and the Court after due trial of the issue came to the conclusion that the compromise was signed by the defendant that it was the duty of the defendant to prove that there was fraud or anything which would make the compromise not binding on him. I went through the deposition of the defendant in this case and I am not able to say that there is any legal evidence which would enable the Court to record a finding that he has discharged the onus. Under Section 102 of the Evidence Act when once the execution of a document is proved, if a party alleges circumstances that would make the document not binding on him, it is for him to prove such circumstances. The defendant said that he did not sign the compromise. That was why the first point was raised. The second point was raised probably because the compromise contained terms beyond the subject-matter of the suit. Having regard to the evidence given by the defendant and the plea raised in the case I think there were no grounds for the District Munsif to decline to record the compromise. I accordingly set aside his order, dated 21st November, 1927, and direct that the compromise be recorded and a decree be passed in terms thereof so far as it relates to the suit.