IMPORTANT POINT
Where under compromise decree, possession was handed over to appellant, of the property in question, on his subsequent dispossession, he was entitled to file a suit for possession on the basis of title under compromise decree and the same is not barred under Section 47 CPC.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-The respondent, Sarabjeet, was originally the sub-tenant of one Damri Lal, the predecessor in title of the present appellants, in respect of lands situated within the limits of the Municipal Board, Bhadohi, Tehsil Gyanpur, which are the subject matter of this appeal. These lands, at all material times, were governed by the provisions of the Banaras Tenancy Act, 1949.

2. Damri Lal had brought a suit being Suit No. 46 of 1955 against the respondent for ejectment of the respondent from the suit lands under Section 154 of the Banaras State Tenancy Act, 1949, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhadohi. On 1.10.1955 the parties compromised the suit and a consent decree was accordingly passed on 4.11.1955. The compromise which is dated 1.10.1955 and is signed by both the parties including the respondent, states that the respondent relinquishes his rights in the land in favour of Damri Lal. The respondent who is the defendant there, has stated : "I have no concern in the land in dispute and the crops standing threon from today s date. A decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant be passed......" Accordingly a consent decree was passed.

3. According to the appellants, under this compromise decree possession of the said lands was surrendered by the respondent to Damri Lal. They further contend that the respondent interfered with Damri Lal s possession in July 1957. As a result, proceeding were initiated under Sectin 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of Damri Lal. These proceedings finally concluded on 30.3.1959. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi, held that the respondent was in possession of the said lands. As a result, immediately thereafter on 12.4.1959, a suit was filed by Damri Lal under Section 159 of the Banaras State Tenancy Act before the Revenue Court for ejectment of the respondent and for recovery of possession. Damri Lal, however, died during the pendency of the suit and the present appellants were brought on the record of the suit in his place. The suit remianed stayed for several years. Ultimately, the trial court, by its judgment and order dated 26.7.1969, held that the plaintiff s (appellants herein) were entitled to succeed and passed a decree in their favour.

4. It was contended before the Revenue Court that the suit was barred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code because the proper remedy was for the appellants to have executed the compromise decree which they had obtained in the earlier proceedings. A separate suit was barred. This contention was negatived by the trial court. It held that the appellants were dispossessed after the consent decree and as a result of the order passed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence a fresh cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs and they were entitled to maintain the suit.

5. In the meanwhile, some time after the compromise decree, the respondent had filed Suit No. 709 of 1956 against Damri Lal in the Munsif s Court at Gyanpur for setting aside of the compromise decree on the ground of fraud. The trial court held that the compromise was valid and binding between the parties and this conclusion was ultimately upheld by the High Court in its judgment and order dated 28.4.1967. The attempt of the res-pondent to get out of the compromise decree had, thus failed. It seems that in the inter-regnum, he took possession of the lands which resulted in proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of Damri Lal. It was, however, held there that the respondent was in possession of the land. This compelled the appellants to file the suit which has ultimately come before us.

6. After the judgment of the trial court dated 26.7.1969 in that suit decreeing the plaintiff s suit for possession, an appeal was filed by the respondent before the Addl. District Judge at Varanasi who allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the Revenue Court. The District Co