BHIMA RAMA JADHAV Vs. ABDUL RAHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is from the decision of Hegde. J. who has granted leave to appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent on the ground that there is conflict of judicial opinion on the following question that arises in the appeal: Where a compromises decree passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction contains a term which is opposed to law or public policy, and that decree has not been set aside in proper proceedings, can that decree be pleaded as constituting estoppel by res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties.

(2.) The facts of the case have been fully set out in the judgment of the learned Judge and it is sufficient to state them briefly here. Land bearing S. No. 188 in Dyaberi village belonged to the plaintiff's uncle, Piraji, who had mortgaged the whole of that land. Subsequently he sold a portion of it bearing S. No. 188/2, to the plaintiff for Rs. 700/- under Exhibit 60 dated 12-9-1939. As Piraji failed to pay the mortgage debt in accordance with the directions of the decree in C. S. No. 133 of 1938 between him and the mortgagee, the Court transferred the decree to the Collector for sale of the mortgaged property.

(3.) During the pendency of the Darkhast before the Collector, Piraji sold other portions of S. No. 188 to two other persons through one of whom the plaintiff purchased a portion bearing S. No. 188/1B. The plaintiff sold the suit property (S. No. 188/2) to the defendant under Exhibit 59 dated 11-7-1941.