- (1.) THESE two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the controversies involved therein are the same. Both the petitions are directed against concurrent orders passed by the courts below upholding a compromise and rejecting the various objections taken by the petitioner as to the validity thereof. The courts below have found that the compromise in question was validly reached between the parties and that the suit filed by Smt. Lakhpati being suit No. 47 of 1968 against the petitioner and one Uma Shanker was rightly disposed of in terms of that compromise. The petitions arise out of two suits namely suit No. 47 of 1968 and Suit No. 30 of 1970. The latter suit was filed by the petitioner against Uma Shanker aforesaid. As a result of the compromise both these suits have been disposed of on terms thereof.
(2.) THE petitioner was defendant No. 2 in suit No. 47 of 1968. Uma Shanker was defendant No. 1 in that suit. THE suit was filed by Smt. Lakhpati for cancellation of a sale deed Dt. 4-10-1963 said to have been executed by her in favour of Rama Shanker. THE plaint allegations were that the plaintiffs husband Tapeshwari was the sole proprietor of the plots in suit which were his sir and Khudkasht. Tapeshwari died about 30 years prior to the institution of the suit leaving the plaintiff and his son Parmatma as his heirs. Parmatma also died about 15 or 16 years. THE plaintiff thus became the sole owner of the properties of her husband including the plots in dispute of which she became the sole bhumidhar after the abolition of Zamindari. THE plaintiff was an illiterate and simple lady depending for everything on Uma Shanker the defendant No. 1 in the suit, who was an employee of the plaintiff's husband. THE plaintiff reposed full confidence in defendant No. 1. Taking advantage of all these things defendant No. 1 fraudulently got his own name entered in the revenue records in respect of the disputed plots and thereafter fraudulently got a sale deed executed m favour of her own son-in-law, Rama Shanker, the defendant No. 2 in the suit the petitioner herein. THE plaintiff never consciously executed any sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 and the same having been obtained by fraud was liable to be cancelled. On these assertions the plaintiff prayed that the sale deed standing in the name of the petitioner be cancelled. This suit was filed on 8-2-1968. On 5-11-1973 Uma Shanker aforesaid died, whereupon the plaintiff filed an application for substitution being paper No. 81-82 for bringing on records the name of four persons in place of Uma Shanker namely Rampat, Harbali, Km. Sudha and one Shripat. Shripat is said to have died subsequently. The other three heirs are arrayed in the writ petition respectively as respondents Nos. 11, 12 and 13. On the same day another application was filed by the petitioner to be appointed as the guardian of Km. Sudha. A third application was filed on the same day namely paper No. 80-A purporting to be a compromise signed by the petitioner as well as his counsel Sri Udai Bhan Satsangi, Karunapati Tripathi counsel for the plaintiff, Girish Chandra Shukla counsel for the proposed heirs of Uma Shanker. On the compromise application the court passed an order that the same be put up after the disposal of the substitution matter. Yet another application was filed by Rama Shanker on 28-11-1973 paper No. 82-c purporting to be under O. 32, R. 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer that he be permitted to compromise the matter on behalf of the minor Km. Sudha. By an order Dt. 12-8-1976 the court substituted only Rampat and Harbali, respondents Nos. 11 and 12 herein as the heirs of Uma Shanker and rejected the claim of others to be substituted as the heirs of Uma Shanker. Shesh Nath, respondent No. 14 herein felt aggrieved by the refusal of the court to substitute him and he took the matter in revision which was dismissed whereupon Sheshnath came to this court by way of writ petition which was allowed and the case was remanded. After the remand order which was passed on 10th of Sept. , 1980, Km. Sudha was also held to be an heir of Uma Shanker aforesaid. In the meantime on 1-3-1975 Smt. Lakhpati also died leaving behind respondents Nos. 3 to 10 as her heirs and legal representatives who were duly substituted in the suit and were represented by the same counsel who represented Smt. Lakhpati namely Karunapati Tripathi. This was done prior to the recording of compromise.
(3.) IT appears that after the compromise was filed in the court on 28-11-1973, an attempt was made by the petitioner to repudiate the compromise, contending that the compromise ought not to be recorded as the sum of Rs. 5,000/- which is stated therein to have been received by him was in fact not paid to him and that the statement to the contrary in the compromise was wrong. A dispute having arisen as to whether the compromise has been duly entered into between the parties, evidence was led both on behalf of the plaintiff as well as on behalf of the petitioner in the shape of oral testimony. The court considered the evidence on the record and the arguments advanced by the parties and came to the conclusion under its order Dt. 14-12-1976 that a lawful compromise had been validly reached between the parties and that the compromise must, therefore, be recorded. The court below, therefore, directed that the suit be disposed of on terms of the compromise and a compromise decree was drawn up in terms thereof. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order Dt. 14th of Dec. , 1976 the petitioner filed an appeal which was subsequently converted into a revision in consequence of the amendments which had come into force in virtue of Central Act No. 104 of 1976. The revision has been dismissed by an order Dt. 10-8-1979. Similar orders were passed in the connected suit namely suit No. 30 of 1970. It may be mentioned at this point that that suit was filed by Rama Shanker for the cancellation of a sale deed Dt. 8-8-1969 which was said to have been executed by Rama Shanker in favour of Uma Shanker on the ground that some one impersonating as Rama Shanker had executed the sale deed in favour of Uma Shanker. Sri G. N. Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that if the compromise filed in suit No. 47 of 1968 is upheld by this court the connected writ petition No. 9364 of 1979 must inevitably fail.;