The compromise decree was not obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, was not illegal or opposed to public policy, and the nominee and/or joint-holder of the postal deposits was not the owner of the corpus but only a custodian of such deposits subject to finalization of the dispute in the Civil Court.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision case arises out of an order being Order No. 35 dated 14th May, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in Misc. Case No. 18 of 1998. By making this application one Smt. Bina Roy, respondent-opposite party No. 2 herein contended before the Court below that the compromise of the appeal was obtained by practicing fraud and mis-representation which was extensively heard by the learned Judge and ultimately he held in favour of such petitioner-opposite party No. 2 herein. The application was allowed on contest without imposing any cost. The compromise decree affected on 6th December, 1996 was set aside.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, originally one Sri Sailendra Nath Chakraborty (since deceased) executed a will giving the property in favour of two sons which includes the petitioner herein. They obtained their probate. On the basis of the probate when they have called upon the postal authority to get encashment of the Postal Savings Certificate in which either the said Smt. Bina Roy has been shown as nominee or joint-holders, the same was refused. As a result whereof, a title suit was filed in the appropriate Court below for the purpose of declaration about the ownership of such certificate. Such suit was dismissed ex parte and from where an appeal was preferred. In the appeal, an application for compromise was filed. The appeal ended with the compromise petition.

( 3 ) IN the said suit there was two defendants. One was the said Smt. Bina Roy and another was the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Department of Communication, Post Master General, West Bengal. Upon going through the compromise petition, I find that two sons of Sailendra Nath Chakraborty (since deceased) as well as the said Smt. Bina Roy are the parties to such compromise. From the signature I find that Sohanlal Chakraborty, brother of the petitioner was represented by his constituted Attorney, Subhra Chakraborty. Madanlal Chakraborty, petitioner herein, himself signed therein along with his Advocate and also Smt. Bina Roy and her Advocate. The name of the learned Advocate of the said Smt. Bina Roy is one Sri Panchanon Khatua. In the affidavit part of such compromise petition I find Smt. Bina Roy, deponent was identified and explained by the learned Advocate. From the Schedule-A of such Postal Savings Certificate etc. I find that the number are as follows:

a)   Monthly Income Scheme being No. MIS Account No. 861720 for Rs. 1,25,000. 00

b)   MIS Account No. 861861 for

(Both at Tollygunge Post Office Cal-33)

Rs. 25,000. 00

c)   MIS Account No. 920274 for Rs. 1,00,000. 00

d)   MIS Account No. 920365 for Rs. 15,00. 00

e)   MIS Account No. 920367 for Rs. 10,000. 00

(All at Regent Park Post Office, Cal-40)  

Total -

Rs. 2,75,000. 00

( 4 ) UPON going through the Schedule of the Will, I find that those postal deposits were bequeathed by the testator in favour of both the sons. It is categorically specified under the Will that the money lying in the aforesaid account shall be devolved upon the two sons i. e. Sohanlal and Madanlal in equal share and Smt. Bina Roy cannot have any right or claim on the money. Such Will was probated. Therefore, unless the probate is set aside, the devolution of property in favour of both the sons cannot be extinguished. However, for the purpose of setting aside the compromise decree passed by the first Appellate Court, an application was made by the said Smt. Bina Roy in respect of certain categorical statements with the support of the affidavit. In paragraph 4 of such application, she contended that Sri Panchanan Khatua, learned Advocate, was engaged by her to contest the case. She signed over a petition as told by the learned Advocate. According to her, such Advocate told her that the petition was made for withdrawal of the said appeal. She further alleged that the learned Advocate told and explained her that