BOMMAREDDI POLIREDDI Vs. BOMMAREDDI BAPIREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From the issues framed and the whole tenor of the judgment of the District Munsif it is clear that the suit was dealt with as one based on the karamama, and the point urged on behalf of appellant (1st defendant) is that the Subordinate Judge was not justified in disregarding the karamama and giving a decree for plaintiffs merely on the basis of the compromise decree in Original Suit No. 298 of 1908 as he has done. It is argued that appellant has thereby been prejudiced in that he has had no fair opportunity of showing that, as alleged in paragragh 5 of his written statement, his consent to the razinama was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge has held that it is not open to appellant to attack the decree in Original Suit No. 298 of 1908 on these grounds without bringing a suit to set it aside. This is wrong, vide Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, and also Nilmony Mookhopadhya v. Aimunissa Bibee 12 C. 156 and Rajib Panda v. Lakhan Sendh Mahapatra 27 C. 11 : 3 C.W.N. 660.

(3.) We must call for findings from the Subordinate Judge on the following.