Judgment :- The second defendant-Reserve Bank of India in O.S.No. 9566/85 is the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1906/2002, the third defendant-Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi is the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1820/2002. Both the revision petitions have been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the I Assistant, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.9566/1985. 2.The brief facts of the pleadings before the Trial Court are as follows. Thiru Mohamed Hussain Sulaiman, the first respondent in these revision petitions filed O.S.No.9566/85 claiming himself to be a person appointed by one Chelliah Nadar to transfer his funds of Rs.45 crores from Burma to one of the branches of the Reserve Bank of India at the time of World War No.II during 1944. According to him the money belonging to Chelliah Nadar of Burma was transferred to one of the branches of Reserve Banks of India at New Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay or Madras by his own efforts on an agreement between himself and Chelliah Nadar that 1% of the total amount will be paid to him as commission on realisation of the said amount by the first respondent who is none other than the legal heir of Chelliah Nadar. 3.The Reserve Bank of India and Ministry of finance filed written statements to the effect that no such fund was ever transferred from Burma to any of the branches of the Reserve Bank of India either during World War or thereafter in the name of Chelliah Nadar-the first defendant or his legal heirs. 4.Though the suit was pending for nearly 17 years all of a sudden on 3.5.2002 a compromise memo was filed between the plaintiff and the first defendant agreed as follows: `1.The 1st defendant is prepared to pay 1 per cent (one per cent) to the plaintiff or his heirs of the total amount due to be realised from R.B.I. or any other Department of Govt. of India. 2.The 1st defendant has no objection to direct the Bank to deposit to the credit of the above suit one per cent of the total realisation including interest and gold coins if any from the bank. 3.The Plaintiff has no objection for the 1st defendant realising 99% of the total amount including interest and gold coin if any from R.B.I. of any other Department of Govt. of India. 3.The Plaintiff has no objection for the 1st defendant realising 99% of the total amount including interest and gold coin if any from R.B.I. of any other Department of Govt. of India. 4.The Ist defendant will not interfere in the plaintiff's process of recovery and representation to various Govt. Departments and other power given to him and other MOU entered till the plaintiff realises his 1%(one per cent).' On entertaining such a compromise memo, the learned Judge passed a compromise decree in spite of the objections raised by the defendants 2 and 3, viz., Reserve Bank of India and Ministry of Finance, Government of India. In the Compromise Decree itself it is mentioned that the Reserve Bank of India-second defendant and the Ministry of Finance, Government of India third defendant objected to such a compromise decree. In spite of such objections, the compromise decree was passed by the learned I Assistant, City Civil Court, Chennai. 5.Thereafter on 17.5.2002, the very same plaintiff who filed the compromise memo in the Court, sent a letter to the Reserve Bank of India and also Ministry of Finance stating that the compromise memo signed and submitted by him in the Court was a plan of collusion between himself, first defendant and the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and therefore, no money should be paid to the first defendant. Not satisfied with such letter against the decree which was passed on the compromise memo filed by the plaintiff and the first defendant, the plaintiff-first respondent has also filed A.S.No.2/2003 before the City Civil Court against the compromise decree passed by the City Civil Court wherein he has stated that the compromise decree was passed only by collusion and fraud between himself and the first defendant. 6.We are not concerned about the agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The second defendant- Reserve Bank of India and the third defendant-Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the petitioners herein, are concerned only with the decree in which an image is created as if the Reserve Bank of India has actually received about Rs.45 crores more than half a century ago and holding on the amount without disbursing the same to the rightful owner whether Chelliah Nadar or his legal heirs. 7.As far as the revision petitioners are concerned the suit has been filed on an imaginary assumption that some amount has been transferred from Burma to India or the plaintiff with an intention to create a liability to Reserve Bank of India has filed such a suit as if he is entitled for a share in the 45 crores of rupees as his commission working for the transfer of money of one Chelliah Nadar. 8.A perusal of the available records and the representation of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would reveal not even a single document was filed before the Trial Court to show that one Chelliah Nadar ever lived at Burma; that he was ever sent out of Burma; whether Chelliah Nadar had received to the tune of Rs.45 crores; whether any such amount was transferred from Burma to India to any of the branches of Reserve Bank of India much less the first defendant in the suit is the alleged legal heir of Chelliah Nadar. Neither the said Chelliah Nadar nor any of his legal heirs have made any claim against the Reserve Bank of India for the said amount. 9.All the above aspects are not only subject to proof but also highly suspicious in nature. On such suspicious circumstances, without the filing of a single document, the Trial Court has recorded a compromise decree which will create a burden on the Reserve Bank of India as well as Ministry of Finance, Government of India so that on a future date the plaintiff can claim 1% of this total amount from the petitioners herein. Apprehending such a claim in future from the first respondent and second respondent, this revision has been filed. 10.It is pertinent to note that by filing a suit for injunction he has not even paid the proper court fee for 1% of the amount claimed by him. But, by filing a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction, he cleverly made an attempt to walk away with more than Rs.45 lakhs. This kind of attitude on the side of the plaintiff is highly deprecated. 11.The suits have to be decreed on the basis of atleast oral and documentary evidence. But, by filing a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction, he cleverly made an attempt to walk away with more than Rs.45 lakhs. This kind of attitude on the side of the plaintiff is highly deprecated. 11.The suits have to be decreed on the basis of atleast oral and documentary evidence. If the suits could be allowed to be decreed on assumptions and presumptions by collusion of parties without a trial and without any proof, it leads to disastrous consequences and the lower Court should always be careful whenever a compromise decree is sought to be passed on filing a compromise memo. This is a clear case in which the Trial Court has not applied its mind and the compromise decree has been passed in spite of the objections by the second and third defendants viz., the revision petitioners herein. The Decree passed by the trial court is perverse and not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 12.Hence, the C.R.Ps. are allowed and the decree passed by the 1st Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is set aside. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.16067 and 19038/2002 are closed.