Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Sarjoo Prasad JJ.
Jai Gobind Singh
Versus
Bagal Lal Singh
Civil Revision No. 691 of 1949 ;
Decided On : MARCH 23, 1950
COMPROMISE - ADJUSTMENT OF SUIT - ORDER 23, RULE 3, CIVIL P. C. - AGREEMENT TO ABIDE BY AWARD OF ARBITRATORS - NO ADJUSTMENT OF SUIT UNTIL AWARD MADE - VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS TERMS OF COMPROMISE - NO ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain Sardari Jagir land, the parties filed a petition of compromise stating that the plaintiff would give 10 bighas of land to each of the defendants out of his Sardari Jagir property, and that five arbitrators would decide all matters relating to their movable and immovable property and the said 20 bighas of land. The arbitrators made an award accordingly, but the lower Courts refused to record the compromise on the ground that there was no adjustment of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was no complete adjustment of the suit between the parties, as the agreement to abide by the award of arbitrators was still in the nature of a contract and had not been carried out, and the terms of the compromise with respect to the matters relating to movable and immovable properties were so vague that no precise meaning could be attributed to it.
Issues: Whether the lower Courts committed any error of jurisdiction in refusing to record an alleged compromise under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that before recording a compromise under Order 23, Rule 3, the Court had to find whether there was really an adjustment of the dispute between the parties. In this case, some of the contingencies mentioned in the compromise had not been fulfilled and parties were at variance as to whether the intention was that these contingencies had to be fulfilled before the compromise could be recorded. The Courts below, therefore, had to go into the evidence in order to find out what the real intention of the parties was and having gone into evidence the Courts below have come to a finding that it was not intended to be an adjustment between the parties so as to be capable of being recorded under Order 23, Rule 3 and the contingencies which have not been fulfilled were an integral part of the compromise.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for revision, holding that the lower Courts had committed no error of jurisdiction in refusing to record the compromise.
Ramaswami, J.
1. The question for decision in this case is whether the lower Courts committed any error of jurisdiction in refusing to record an alleged compromise under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C.
2. The plaintiff opposite party instituted a suit declaring his title and for recovery of possession of certain Sardari Jagir land alleging that the rule of primogeniture governed and that he being the eldest son was entitled to it in preference be the defendants who are his younger brothers. Defendant 1 contested the suit on the ground that the ordinary rule of succession applied and the land belonged in equal shares to the plaintiff and two defendants. Defendant 2, however, alleged that the land in dispute being Sardari Jagir belonged to the holder of the office of the Sardar and since defendant 2 was the Sardar, the land belonged to him. On 19th February 1948 the defendants filed a petition before the Subordinate Judge to the effect that the suit had been compromised and that it should be decreed in terms thereof. The lower Courts refused to record the compromise on the ground that there was no adjustment of the suit. Against this order the defendants have obtained a rule from this Court.
3. On their behalf Mr. B. C. De submitted the argument that by virtue of the compromise there was a complete adjustment of the suit and the lower Courts improperly exercised their jurisdiction in refusing to record it under Order 33, Rule 3, Civil P. C. It is necessary to examine the terms of the alleged compromise in order to test the correctness of this argument. On 21st January 1948 the parties filed the petition (EX. a) which is to the following effect :
"The plaintiff and the defendants of this suit are fall brothers. We both the parties having come to an agreement have compromised the aforesaid suit in presence of ten gentlemen on the following terms ;
1. I, Bagal Lal Singha, the plaintiff, give 10 bighas of 1st class, 2nd and 3rd class paddy lands, out of my Sardari Jagir property, to each of the defendants, in all 20 bighas. I remain bound to give (such) Plot Nos. etc. of this land as may be duly determined by five gentlemen. The following 5 gentlemen shall decide (all matters) relating to our movable and immovable property and the said 20 bighas of land, to which none of the parties shall be competent to make any plea or raise any objection. 21-1-48
1. Sri Dhananjoy Ghosh of Garia
2. " Narayan Chandra Mitra of Garia
3. " Shibkinkar Sarkar of Sitamuri
4. " Asuthosh Mitra of Dumdumi (?)
5. " Nibaran Chandra Ghosh of Garia.
Signed to-day K. Prasad, B. C.
Sub-Judge, Deoghar, 20-2-48
Sd. Joy Gobind Singha, 20-2-48.
We shall remain bound by whatever shall be done by the aforesaid arbitrators. No one shall be competent to make any plea or raise any objection.
Sd. Bagal Lal Singha
Sd. Atul Chanda Singha 21-1-48
Scribed by Narayan Chandra Mitra of Garia, 20-1-48.
4. On 24th January 1948 an award was filed by the arbitrators to the following effect:
"The arbitrators mentioned below beg to state as follows : That on 21st January 1948 the aforesaid plaintiff having definitely expressed his desire to amicably settle the said suit and filed a petition before the S. D. O. Jamtara, we, the arbitrators, made both the defendants agree to it. We met togetb.ee at Karaiya and demarcated 10 bighas of paddy land to each of the defendants as mentioned in Schedules A and B given below with their revisional survey settlement plot numbers. The plaintiff and the defendants have partitioned their movable properties. Paddy lands mentioned below in the schedules are given (allotted) according to the arbitrators award and it is prayed that the suit may be finally disposed of (accordingly). Be it stated that the parties shall not be competent to claim anything as costs of the suit. Be it stated that the petition filed by the plaintiff and the defendants before the S. D. O. is filed herewith.
Details of Schedule.
Mauza Kariya
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
