RAJAH M BHASKARA SETHUPATHI; IRULAPPA NADAN Vs. NARAYANASAMY GURUKKAL
RAJAH M BHASKARA SETHUPATHI; IRULAPPA NADAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In this petition the plaintiff and the defendants in, O.S. No. 33 of 1898 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura (East), now pending in appeal in this Court, state that they have entered into a compromise of the suit on certain stated terms and ask that the agreement may bo recorded and a decree passed in its terms in lieu of the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge in the suit. The petition is made under Section 375 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides as follows:- "If a suit be adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, or if the defendant satisfy the plaintiff in respect to the whole or any part of the matter of the suit, such agreement, compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded, and the court shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the suit, and such decree shall be final so far as relates to so much of the subject-matter of the suit as is dealt with by the agreement, compromise or satisfaction."
(2.) The plaintiff brought the suit in his representative character as the trustee of a certain temple, on behalf of the general body of worshippers of the temple, and when it was known that he had entered into a compromise with the defendants, three of the worshippers on whose behalf he had sued, applied (C.M.P. Nos. 603, 604, 605, 606, 637 and 638 of 1901) to this court to be joined with him as co-plaintiffs in the suit, in order that they might oppose the present petition. The defendants opposed their application, but in our order of the 18 instant we directed them to be joined as co-plaintiffs on certain terms. They now oppose the present petition, and the1 plaintiff himself, through his counsel, opposes his own petition, and expresses his desire to withdraw from the compromise. The defendants, on the other hand, desire to enforce the compromise and claim a decree in accordance with it.
(3.) The mere withdrawal of the original plaintiff, who signed the compromise, would, by itself, be no ground for refusing to give a decree in accordance with it. Karuppan V/s. Ramasami I.L.R. 8 M. 482 and Appasami V/s. Manikam I.L.R. 9 M. 103, but both the original plaintiff and co- plaintiffs subsequently added, contend inter alia that the compromise is not a lawful one, and that for this reason and also because the co-plain-tiffs have not joined in it the court ought not to act upon it.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.