- (1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent in the Court of the subordinate Judge, Dhanbad for recovery of arrears of royalty and cess from the appellant and another alleged to be due under a compromise decree passed on 6-3-1923 in a previous suit between the predecessors-in-interest of the parties. The only plea which is material for the purpose of this appeal is that the compromise decree not having been registered was inadmissible in evidence. The Courts below held that the document did not require registration and gave effect to its terms in decreeing the suit. Defendant 9 has preferred this appeal.
(2.) The facts are not now in dispute and may be briefly stated. On 11-3-1921 one Kumar Krishna Prasad Singh (hereinafter referred to as Kumar) granted a permanent lease of the right to the underground coal in 5800 bighas of land belonging to him to Shibsaran Singh and Sitaram Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Singhs) by a registered patta stipulating for a Salami of Rs. 8000 and royalty at the rate of 2 As. per ton of coal raised subject to a minimum of Rs.8000 and far certain other cesses and interest. On 7-6-1921, Kumar executed another permanent patta leasing the right to the coal in 500 bighas out of the 5800 bighas referred to above to one Prayagji Ballavji Deoshi and his son Harakchand Deoshi (hereinafter referred to as the Deoshis). By this document the Deoshis agreed inter alia to pay royalty at the rate of 2 As. per ton on all classes of coal raised subject to a minimum of Rs. 750 a year. The Singhs feeling themselves aggrieved by the latter transaction brought a title suit (No. 1291 of 1921) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad for a declaration of their title and for possession of the 500 bighas leased to the Deoshis under the aforesaid patta of 7-6-1921. To that suit Kumar was made party as defendant 3, the Deoshis being defendants 1 and 2. The suit was however compromised on 6-3-1923 by all the parties and a decree based on the compromise was also passed on the same day. The interest of the Singhs was brought to sale in 1938 in execution of a decree obtained against them and was purchased by the plaintiff who instituted the present suit on 3-10-1942 claiming the royalty and cesses payable under the compromise decree for the period from Pous 1345 to Asadh 1349 B. S. from defendants 1 and 2 as the representatives of the Deoshis who entered into the compromise of March 1923.
(3.) In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevant terms of the compromise decree which are as follows : "The plaintiffs (the Singhs) within two months from this date shall pay Rs. 8000 as salami to defendant 3 (Kumar). Otherwise all the terms at the compromise will stand cancelled and the plaintiffs shall not be competent to claim any right to or possession over the land covered by the patta dated 11.3.1921. . . The patta which defendant 3 executed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of 5800 bighas of coal land in village Rahraband shall remain in force, and the plaintiffs will get a decree of declaration of their right and title to the 500 bighas of coal land in dispute but defendants 1 and 2 (the Deoshis) shall hold possession as tenants. Besides the terms mentioned below, defendants 1 and 2 shall remain bound by all the remaining terms under which they took settlement of the 500 bighas of coal land from defendant 3 under patta and Kabuliyat, and both defendants 1 and 2 shall possess the same under the plaintiffs from generation to generation and all the terms of the said patta and Kabuliyat shall remain effective and in force between them. Both defendants 1 and 2 shall remain bound to pay to the plaintiffs commission at the rate of 2a. 6p. per ton on all sorts of coal instead of 2a. a ton as stated before in the patta of 5800 bighas of land settled with the plaintiffs. . . .. The plaintiffs shall pay to defendant 3 in future the minimum royalty of Rs. 6000 instead of Rs. 8000 as stipulated in the original patta of 11-3-1921 and commission at the rate of 1a. 9p. a ton in place of 2a. a ton as stipulated in the patta of March 21 . . .. Unless the plaintiffs pay to defendant 3 Rs. 8000 within 2 months from this day they shall not be competent to take out execution of this decree, nor shall they be competent to take possession of the land in dispute. The defendants 1 and 2 within one month from the date of payment of Rs. 8000 as aforesaid to defendant 3 shall execute a new Kabuliyat in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the modified terms stated above, i.e., on the condition to pay commission at the rate of 2a. 6p. per ton. . . . In the new patta which defendant 3 will execute in favour of the plaintiffs he shall embody the condition that the annual minimum royalty will be Rs. 6000 instead of Rs. 8000 and commission will be at the rate of 1a. 9p. per ton in place of 2a. per ton as mentioned in the aforesaid patta. If defendant 3 does not execute the patta on the aforesaid modified terms in favour of the plaintiffs within the time aforesaid and both defendants 1 and 2 also do not execute a kabuliyat on the aforesaid modified terms, then this very rafanama shall be treated as the patta and kabuliyat, and the plaintiffs in accordance with the terms of the rafanama shall pay to defendant 3, Rs. 6000 only as minimum royalty and commission at the rate of 1a. 9p. per ton with respect to 5800 bighas and shall continue to realise commission at the rate of 2a. 6p. per ton from defendants 1 and 2 who shall remain bound to pay the same.";