KRISHNABAI, WIDOW OF HARBHAT Vs. HARI GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to this Full Bench is, "whether when a plaintiff is seeking to enforce by original suit a right to forfeiture contained in a consent decree whereby the status of landlord and tenant is established between the plaintiff and defendant, the Court in the exorcise of its equitable jurisdiction is precluded from granting such relief against forfeiture as it might have granted, had the status arisen from contract or custom."

(2.) This should he supplemented by the statement that the consent decree was passed under Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code in accordance with a lawful agreement recorded under that section.

(3.) The reasons for the reference are set forth in the referring judgment in which are enumerated the material authorities. The first case mentioned is Shirekuli Timapa Hegda V/s. Mahablya (1886) 10 Bom.435 in which the plaintiff, relying on a right of re-entry on failure to pay rent, sought to eject the defendant. The District Judge however confirmed the decree of the First Court, which granted relief against the forfeiture. On appeal to the High Court it was said that "the Judge was in error in applying the doctrine of penalties to a stipulation contained in a decree giving effect to the compromise of a suit."