D.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal was filed by the plaintiff Bhikhari, who is now dead. It arises out of the following facts: Smt. Paramjota filed Suit No. 147 of 1974 for cancellation of the sale -deed dated 5th November, 1973 executed by her in respect of her plots in favour of Bhikhari. Smt. Paramjota and Bhikhari are now dead. A compromise was arrived in the aforesaid suit and the compromise decree was passed on 16th October, 1975. Suit No. 818 of 1978 was field by Bhikhari against Smt. Paramjota in the trial court for cancellation of the compromise decree passed in Suit No. 147 of 1974, on the ground that the compromise was obtained under duress and by exercising undue influence and coercing the plaintiff to sign the compromise under the fear of complaint No. 6 of 1974 under Sections 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code filed by Smt. Paramjota against Bhikhari. It was alleged that Smt. Paramjota threatened Bhikhari that unless he compromised the civil suit, she will get him convicted, in the criminal complaint case. It was alleged that Bhikhari was not present when the compromise was verified nor he had information that the compromise was going to be verified. The compromise decree in these circumstances was passed on 16th October, 1975 behind his back. When the plaintiff Bhikhari came to know of the compromise decree, he moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the compromise decree, which was dismissed on technical ground and appeal against that order was also dismissed. Consequently the suit for cancellation of the compromise decree was filed.
(2.) SMT . Paramjota contested the suit denying that she exercised undue influence, coercion etc. upon the plaintiff to sign the compromise. The compromise was signed by the plaintiff on his free will, but he did not turn up to verify the same. The application was given to the court concerned for recording the compromise. The copy of the application was served upon the counsel for Bhikhari, still Bhikhari did not appear nor filed any objection nor verified the compromise. The compromise decree was, therefore, passed, which is said to be legal. It was also pleaded that since the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed so also the appeal against that order filed by Bhikhari, the suit is barred by res -judicata. The trial court decreed the suit and set aside the compromise decree. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal and after reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court, dismissed the suit. It is therefore, this second appeal.
(3.) ONLY two substantial questions of law were formulated in this appeal at the time of admission.;