S.D. Singh, J. - - (1.) This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of oui brother Sharma, J. in second appeal no. 298 of 1954 and raises the question of registration of a compromise petition filed in a mutation court. One Smt. Jamwanti Kaur was the limited owner of zamindari property in several villages. Bhaiya Jagdish Ram Datt (to be referred to hereafter as Jagdish Dutt) and Bhaiya Chandrabhan Datt Pandey (to be referred to hereafter as Chandra Bhan) were the collaterals of her deceased husband and claimed to be entitled to succeed to the property in preference to Smt. Jamwanti Kaur. They entered into a compromise on 14th October, 1956 (Ex. A 5), by which they agreed to share the property which they might be able to secure half and half. After this compromise was arrived at, suit no. 2 of 1936 was filed by them in the late Chief Court of Oudh against Smt. Jamwanti Kaur. A compromise was arrived at even in that suit between the two claimants and Smt. Jamwanti Kaur and the suit was decreed in terms of that compromise (Ex. A 2) on 3rd June, 1938. According to the terms of the compromise, Jagdish Dutt and Chandrabhan became entitled to inherit the property after the death of Smt. Jamwanti Kaur half and half. Although in both the compromises Jagdish Dutt and Chandrabhan were to get the property half and half, village Dhanepur was to go exclusively to Chandrabhan. After the suit was compromised Chandrabhan and Jagdish Dutt executed another compromise deed on 4th September, 1943 (Ex. A 6), by which the property was agreed to be divided among the two claimants half and half with this stipulation that village Dhanepur was to go to Chandrabhan exclusively.
(2.) Smt. Jamwanti Kaur died in December, 1947, and thereupon applications for mutation of names were filed by both Jagdish Dutt and Chandrabhan. A compromise was arrived at in the course of the mutation proceedings and was filed in the mutation court and it is this compromise application (Ex. 1) which is the subject-matter of the present litigation. Both the parties recorded in this compromise application that the dispute between them had already been settled earlier by way of a family settlement and that both parties were jointly entitled to the entire property in dispute; that the property had not till then been actually partitioned by metes and bounds and that the two parties would 'hereafter' be the owners of the properties mentioned in lists A and B exclusively. The property mentioned in list A was to go to Jagdish Dutt and the property mentioned in list B to Chandrabhan. Dhanepur is included in list B which was in keeping with the earlier compromise between the parties, but there is a qualifying clause in this compromise application which provides that the income from tahbazari of village Dhanepur will be shared by both the claimants half and half and that both of them would be entitled to manage the holding of the market and the collections of tahbazari in Dhanepur. On this application being filed in the mutation court, the matter was referred by the Naib Tehsildar to the Sub-Divisional Officer who mentioned in his order : "However, the case be decided in terms of the compromise which is a family settlement arrived at between the parties. I, therefore, order mutation as follows." Then follow the names of the villages which were to be mutated in the names of Chandrabhan and Jagdish Dutt respectively.
(3.) The suit out of which this special appeal has arisen was filed by Jagdish Dutt for the recovery of half share of tahbazari collections for the years 1355, 1356 and 1357F. The plaintiff alleged that Rs. 317 were collected by Chandrabhan in 1355F, Rs. 319 in 1356F and Rs. 320 in 1357F the total collections thus came to Rs. 956. The plaintiff claimed a half share therein together with interest. The suit was thus filed for the recovery of Rs. 536-1-7.;