Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 248 (PAT)

Ramawati Devi v. Maheshwar Singh

2003-03-03

NAGENDRA RAI

body2003
Judgment 1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 6-6-2001, passed by the Subordinate Judge IX, Siwan, in Misc. Case No. 4 of 1999, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, by which she has challenged the compromise entered between her and other opposite parties as unlawful. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit for partition against the defendant-opposite parties second set and the petitioner, who was defendant No. 3. Her mother was defendant No. 2, who died during the pendency of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the parties agreed to compromise the matter and, accordingly, a compromise petition was prepared and the same was signed by all the parties. The properties in Schedule 5 were allotted to the defendant-petitioner. The said compromise petition was moved on 28-8-1998 and, thereafter, the Court examined witnesses in support of the aforesaid compromise including the petitioner, who also put her signature on the compromise petition, on the basis of which a decree was passed on 7-12-1998. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she admitted that the compromise was entered into between the parties and Schedule 5 was allotted to her and on the basis of which a compromise decree was passed. Later on 9-5-1999, she came to know that the properties, which were included in Schedule 5 allotted to her in the compromise, were not in that schedule and the plaintiff and other defendants committed a fraud by changing the pages of the compromise petition. She being an illiterate lady could not know the game adopted by the plaintiff and other defendants. When she came to know about their mischievous and fraudulent act, she got the record inspected through an Advocate and, thereafter, filed a petition to annul the compromise on the ground that the same was unlawful. She challenged the compromise on the ground that she had not appointed any Advocate to represent the case on her behalf. She only put her signature on the compromise petition without reading the contents. Her signature has been identified by some other Advocate and there is no signature on each of the compromise petition either of her or of her Advocate. The alleged properties, which were allotted to her, were changed in the compromise decree. 4. She only put her signature on the compromise petition without reading the contents. Her signature has been identified by some other Advocate and there is no signature on each of the compromise petition either of her or of her Advocate. The alleged properties, which were allotted to her, were changed in the compromise decree. 4. The plaintiff-opposite party as well as other defendants contested the claim of the petitioner and asserted that the compromise was lawful and the same was entered into between the parties and the petitioner had put her signature on the compromise petition and at the time of recording the compromise, the Court examined her as well as other concerned persons and after being fully satisfied recorded the compromise. 5. Five witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner and the plaintiff-opposite parties first set also examined six witnesses. Other defendants also examined the witnesses. The parties also filed documentary evidence. The Court below, after having considered the evidence, came to the finding that the compromise was lawful and the petitioner having understood the contents of the compromise petition put her signature and in the Court she examined herself and was also cross-examined by other witnesses. Other persons were also examined at the time of recording of the compromise. There is signature of the Advocate and the parties put their thumb impressions/signatures on the compromise petition in presence of the Court and, thereafter, the compromise was recorded and, accordingly, on that basis rejected the petition. 6. When a suit has been disposed of in terms of the compromise, then the remedy available to the party to challenge the said compromise on the ground of the same being unlawful is either to agitate the matter before the same court under proviso to Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) or to challenge the same by filing an appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code. In exercise of the revisional power, this Court will interfere only when there is jurisdictional error and it does not sit as an appellate forum with a view to reappraise the evidence to come to a different conclusion. 7. In exercise of the revisional power, this Court will interfere only when there is jurisdictional error and it does not sit as an appellate forum with a view to reappraise the evidence to come to a different conclusion. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the properties mentioned in Schedule 5, which were allotted to the petitioner, have been changed after the parties agreed to a compromise and the compromise was signed or thumb impression was taken on the same. However, during the course of argument, he has not been able to show as to which plot having been earlier allotted to her, has been excluded from the schedule allotted to her nor has he been able to point out that the court below has omitted any material evidence having bearing on the question. 8. The parties have examined the witnesses before the Court below as stated above. The Court below has considered the evidence and has found that the compromise is in writing, signed by the parties and at the time of recording of compromise, she was examined by the Court for being satisfied that she has entered into a compromise and she admitted before the Court that the compromise has been entered between her and the plaintiff and that was recorded in writing. The Court below has also found that the original compromise petition, on the basis of which compromise has been recorded, is running into 22 pages and on all the pages, there is a seal of the Court and there are signatures of all the parties and their Advocate on the compromise petition. In my view, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the compromise was lawfully entered and no ground to annul the compromise has been made out. 9. In the result, there is no merit in this Civil Revision and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.