- (1.) THE revision has been filed against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 23. 1. 1958 upholding the order of the trial court dated 24. 5. 1957 in a case relating to redemption of mortgage.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. Khaju Khan, opposite party brought a suit for redemption of the disputed land against Balu Ram, applicant, on 28. 6. 1956 in the court of the S. D. O. Fatehpur with the allegations that on 25. 6. 1954 the land was mortgaged in lieu of Rs. 390/- with interest at 1 P. M. for a period of 2 years and that after the expiry of two years Balu Ram was refusing the redemption of the mortgage. Baluram admitted the mortgage but pleadqd that he had been in possession of the disputed land even prior to the creation of the mortgage; that he had acquired rights over the land in dispute; and that Khaju Khan had no right to seek redemption. Balu Ram after filing his written statement in the trial court applied before the Collector for a transfer of the case from that court to some other court. This application for transfer was rejected by the Collector on 5-111956, On 9. 11. 1956 the parties put up a compromise before the Collector which was placed on record after verification. When the record reached the trial Court Balu Ram contended that the compromise referred to above should be accepted and the case should be decided in accordance therewith After hearing the parties the learned trial court relying on the decision of the Board in Har Govind vs. Narain Das decided on 5. 2. 1957 (Case No 49 Sawai Madhopur of 1955, 1957 R. R. D. 101) held that the compromise could not be regarded as lawful and hence could not be acted upon. He, therefore, directed the parties to adduce their evidence on the issues framed in the case. Balu Ram challenged this order in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner who agreed with the views of the trial court and rejected the appeal. Hence this revision. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued before us that an agreement arrived at between the parties independently of the transaction of the mortgage) would not amount to a clog on the equity of redemption, and hence it can be regarded as valid and binding. It is not necessary to examine this question at any length. As the dispute relates to a mortgage of agricultural tenancy it shall be determined with reference to the provisions contained in the tenancy laws. Order, 23, Rule 3 C. P. C. lays down that where it is proved to the satisfaction of a court that a dispute has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise then the same shall be recorded and decree shall be passed in accordance therewith. Thus where a compromise is alleged the question that would arise after a decision on the factum of compromise would be as to whether it embodies a lawful agreement or not. The power of the court to record agreements or compromise and to act upon them is restricted to such agreements as are lawful and agreements which are not lawful cannot be made the basis of any decree or order by a court. The term "lawful" clearly means that it ought to be legally enforceable. Agreements prohibited by law or which are opposed to public policy are clearly unlawful. We may refer to sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which lays down that every agreement whether made before or after the commencement of this Act which purports to or would operate to restrict a tenant from enforcing or exercising any right on or secured to him by this Act shall be void to that extent. In the present case the compromise alleged to have been arrived at between the parties runs below: - "in this case the parties have arrived at a mutual compromise whereby Khaju Khan has admitted the Khatedari rights of Balu Ram over the land in dis-pute. Balu Ram would continue in possession over the disputed land in the capacity of Khatedar tenant and that Khaju Khan and his heirs would have no right or title over that land. No arrears of rent were due from Balu Ram to Khaju Khan and in future Balu Ram would pay the rent in his own right. " The dispute related to the redemption of the mortgage wherein Balu Ram admitted the mortgage but pleaded an amount different from that alleged by Khaju Khan. The compromise states nothing as to what happened to the right of redemption of this mortgagee. It was agreed between the parties that Balu Ram would continue in possession as the khatedar tenant and by implication it may tantamount to an extinction of Khatedari rights of Khaju Khan in the land. No consideration or any reasons for this course of affairs can be gathered from this compromise. It is also evident from the record that some time after 9. 11. 1956 Khaju Khan challenged this compromise on the ground that it was obtained from him on false pretexts and that the contents of the same were never explained to him. Even if this aspect of the compromise is ignored it is apparent that it definitely deprives Khaju Khan of the right to redeem the mortgage and that too without any rhyme or reasons. This is an agreement which is clearly hit by the provisions of sec. 4 of the Raj. Tenancy Act. The lower courts were thus justified in rejecting the same and requiring the parties to lead their evidence for a decision on merits. The revision is hereby rejected. .;