JUDGMENT

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1979. From the Judgment Order dated 20.1.77 of the Gujarat High Court in Second Appeal No. 90 of 1976.

Krishan Kumar for Vimal Chandra S. Dave for the Appellants. Ms. Meenaksh Arora for Anip Sachthey for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ANAND, J. —This appeal by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 20th of January, 1977 in Second Appeal No. 90 of 1976.

The plaintiffs-appellants are the farmers of the Village Morzar under Bhanwad Taluka of Jamnagar District. Their lands are situated on the outskirts of the village. Under the Vartu Dam Irrigation Scheme, the defendant-State proposed to construct a Dam on river Vartu and prepared a sketch, indicating the passage of the canal from Vartu Dam and for that purpose, it proceeded to acquire land through which the canal was proposed to run. The plaintiffs- appellants apprehended serious damage to their lands by the passing of the canal through their lands and they filed a Regular Civil Suit in 1966 against the defendant-State, seeking to restrain it from implementing the Irrigation Scheme, as proposed. Suit was registered and defendants were summoned. During the pendency of the suit, it appears that an agreement was arrived at between the parties and it was agreed that the canal from Vartu Dam would be run as per the line demarcated in red in the map appended to the deed of agreement Ex.45. As a result of the said agreement the suit was unconditionally withdrawn by the plaintiffs on 24.11.1966. Somewhere in 1972, the plaintiffs-appellants discovered that the State Government was going back from the agreement and alignment of the canal was being undertaken contrary to the alignment reflected in the map appended to the agreement Ex.45. They, therefore, filed a fresh suit for declaration to the effect that the agreement, dated 7.11.1966, entered into between them and the respondents through its Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department Jamnagar, was binding on the parties and that the parties were bound to act according to the terms of the said agreement and for an injunction, restraining the defendant- State from going back on the agreement. This suit of the plaintiffs-appellants was contested and the following issues were framed

(1) Whether the suit agreement dated 7.11.1966 is not binding to the defendant ?

(2) If it is binding whether the plaintiff prove that they have complied with the terms and conditions of this agreement?

(3) Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable?

(4) Whether the suit is bad for the misjoinder of the plaintiffs and the cause of action?

(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable as the agreement dated 7.11.1966 has not been registered of because no compromise decree had been passed in terms of this agreement?

(6) Whether the suit is not in time?

(7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration sought?

(8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the permanent injunction as prayed for by them?

(9) What order?

Issues 1 to 8 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs- appellants and against the defendant-State. The Trial Court decreed the suit and declared that the suit agreement dated 7.11.1966 entered between the plaintiffs and the defendants through its executive engineer, was binding on the parties and that the parties were bound to act in accordance with the terms of the said compromise the defendant state was permanently restrained from going back from the agreement and act otherwise than as per the terms of the same.

The State of Gujarat preferred an appeal in the Court of District Judge Jamnagar against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. During the hearing, the parties confined their arguments to the following two points

(1) Whether the agreement dated 7.11.66 is binding to the State of Gujarat?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs, granted to them by the trial court?

The appellate court answered both the qu