Gopal Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is revision petition by Smt. Bhagan and Parsa defendants against Het Ram plaintiff. It is directed against the order of Shri S.N. Parkash, Senior Sub -Judge with enhanced appellate powers Hissar, dated May 24, 1971 rejecting the appeal of the defendants from the order of Shri K.K. Aggarwal, Sub -Judge 1st Class, Sirsa dated April 8, 1970 recording compromise between the parties.
(2.) ON January 4, 1968, Smt. Bhagan defendant No. 1 executed mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff mortgaging with possession 178 Kanals of agricultural land situate in village Chilkani Dhab. The document was registered. On July 24, 1969, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was mortgagee in possession of the land mortgaged with him and that the entries in khasra girdawaries pertaining to the land in dispute showing possession of defendant No. 1 with effect from Rabi, 1968 were liable to correction with the further relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 was impleaded as a party on the ground of his interference with the possession of the plaintiff. On 14th November, 1969, written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. It was pleaded that in fact the possession of the land mortgaged had not been delivered to the plaintiff and remained with defendant No. 1 and that the plaintiff had agreed to take 1/3rd batai of the mortgaged land from defendant No. 1. The defendants admitted the execution of the mortgage deed. On 21st November, 1969, the following solitary issue was framed: - Whether defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit land since execution of the mortgage deed as alleged in para 2 of the written statement. The case was adjourned for evidence of the parties to March 16, 1970. On that date, evidence of the defendants was recorded and the case was adjourned to April 8, 1970 for evidence of the plaintiff. On that day Bir Bal was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Daring the course of the examination of that witness, the parties compromised and their statements were recorded. Shri Prem Chand, counsel for the defendants stated that the suit of the plaintiff he decreed on the condition that if Smt. Bhagan defendant paid to the plaintiff of deposited in Court before January 31, 1971, sum of Rs. 12,000/ - due on account of mortgage money along with consolidated amount of interest @ Rs. 100/ - per mensem, the land mortgaged would stand redeemed and that if she commits default in so making the payment, the suit of the plaintiff for declaration along with the possession would stand decreed. It was further undertaken on behalf of the defendants that if during the period of time, during which the liability of defendant No. 1 in respect of the mortgage money and the interest due was to be discharged is not discharged, the plaintiff will be entitled to further recover the interest or the produce of the mortgaged land by way of remedy as available to him in law, that the plaintiff shall have no light to interfere with the possession of the defendant over the land mortgaged till January 31, 1971 and that the parties shall bear their own costs.
(3.) THE above statement of the counsel for the defendants was followed by a statement made by the plaintiff and his counsel Shri N.N. Kapur. It was stated by them that the above statement of the counsel for the defendants had been read out to them, that in terms of that statement, the suit be decreed and that the parties would bear their respective costs. On that date, the trial court passed the order in terms of the statements of the parties. As a result of the compromise between the parties, the suit was decreed and a consent decree in terms thereof was drawn up.;