SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ait Kumar, Advocate for appellant and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai, Advocate for respondent.
(2.) This is a defendant's Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. arising from judgment and decree dated 13.02.1978 passed by Sri J.B. Singh, IVth Additional District Judge, Mirzapur in Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1977, whereby Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") has allowed appeal and judgment and decree dated 12.08.1977 passed by Sri Vimal Kishore, the then IVth Additional Munsif, Mirzapur in Original Suit No. 159 of 1971 has been set aside and suit for cancellation of compromise decree dated 07.01.1970 of Revenue Case No. 39/182/7 of 1968 has been decreed.
(3.) The appeal was admitted by treating grounds No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 as substantial questions of law and the same may be reproduced as under: "1. Whether it is settled view of law that the admission is a best piece of evidence and as such the statement of plaintiff-respondent under Order 10 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code admitting the fact that at the time of filing of compromise which was prepared in the presence of her brother and Mama and which was duly verified by his counsel, she was present there and that was read over and explained to her , is being on the plaintiff-respondent, the view contrary taken by the Lower Appellate Court has absolutely no legal justification? 2. Whether it is settled view of law that even a compromise decree operates as espel between the parties and the plaintiff-respondent having acted upon on basis of said decree, cannot be claimed to deny the effect of the said decree? 3. Whether admittedly in any view of matter the village Manikpur, she had a claim for only 6 bighas of land but having been given in the compromise decree 9 bighas of land and the entire 9 bighas of land being sold by the plaintiff-respondent and recital of the sale deed itself makes it clear that she has entered into compromise and accepting the same, she has transferred the entire land. 4. Because Rama Shankar Singh Advocate was also her counsel in the previous revenue suit who signed the compromise and verified the plaintiff-respondent, had also been her counsel in the present suit as well, therefore the compromise was arrived at with the consultation and advise of the counsel in whom the plaintiff-respondent has still got confidence therefore there is no question of practicing any fraud on the plaintiff-respondent in arriving at the compromise? 5. Whether the plaintiff's case was that after the death of her father-in-law Batul Singh, she was allotted in private partition 14 bighas of land and she was in possession has only been corroborated by Chhote Lal who according to own statement was not present there at the time of alleged partition and therefore she has miserably failed to prove the standing set up by her? 6. Whether the view taken by the learned Lower Court, that a compromise needs registration, is manifestly erroneous inasmuch no fresh right was created and it was not a transfer and as such no requirement of registration?" (emphasis added) ;