Orders revisable u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

These C.R.Ps. raise a very important question of law, viz., whether a compromise can be recorded by Court, and a decree passed in terms thereof when it does not fall under one of three known categories, namely, (1) where all parties involved are knowingly and willingly parties to an oral adjustment or the compromise, the terms of which they know and have accepted; (2) where the advocates or lawyers appearing for the parties, exercising the powers given to them under their vakalats, adjust the matter and enter into a compromise whether the parties have agreed or not; and (3) where the terms of the compromise have been embodied in a document presented to Court, signed by the parties and their advocates, and the Court is asked, by a separate petition, to pass a decree in terms of the compromise, permitting, as beneficial, minors, lunatics, etc., if any to enter into it.

The facts in this case are rather curious. The respondent in both these C.R.Ps., one Periaswami Gounden, filed two suits in the District Munsif’s Court Coimbatore. One was O.S. No. 865 of 1952, District Munsif’s Court, Coimbatore which later on, became, on transfer, O.S. No. 48 of 1954, District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, and again on re-transfer, O.S. No. 318 of 1954, District Munsif’s Court, Coimbatore. There were five defendants, Athappa Goundar, Vellingiri Goundan, Velayuda Goundar, Sellakumaraswami Goundar and Valliammal. Periaswami prayed in that suit for a declaration of the right of himself and his lessees to take their carts along the cart-track, A.B.C.D. marked in the plaint, and to walk along a foot-path marked A.B.S.R. in the plaint, and to restrain the defendants, by a permanent injunction, from interfering with him and the lessees when using the cart-track and the footpath, and for costs. He filed O.S. No. 867 of 1952, (which later on, became O.S. No. 49 of 1954, District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam and still later, O.S. No. 317 of 1954, District Munsif Court, Coimbatore) for a declaration that he and his lessees, were entitled to use the cart-tracks A.B.C.D. E.F. and G.H.L.K. in the plan attached to the plaint, and for restraining the defendants by a permanent injunction from interfering with him and his lessees in such use, and for costs. In that suit there were three defendants, viz., Nachimuthu Goundan, Sellappa Goundan alias Ponnuswami Goundan, and Palani Goundan alias Chinnaswami Goundan. Suits for declaration of rights of disputed cartpath and foot-path, are generally hotly contested, and these two suits were not exceptions to the rule.

On 25th January, 1954, the counsel on both sides began negotiations for settlement, and both these old suits were at their request adjourned to 28th January 1954, for reporting settlement. No settlement was arrived at on 28th January, 1954 and the suits were adjourned at their request to 29th January, 1954, for settlement. The plaintiff, Periaswami Gounden, was offering to have O.S. No. 867 of 1952 (O.S. No. 317 of 1954) dismissed, and the right claimed to the carttrack and foot-path therein, given up, in case the right to the cart-track and the foot-path in O.S. No. 865 of 1952 (O.S. No. 318 of 1954) was allowed; he was also willing to pay money compensation for the land covered by the cart-track and footpath involved in O.S. No. 865 of 1952. The defendants in O.S. No. 865 of 1952 (O.S. No. 318 of 1954) appear to have insisted on an equal extent of land being given to them somewhere else, instead of mere money compensation. The peasant’s love for land is well known. The plaintiff, Periaswami Gounden, was not willing to give exchange land, and was willing to give only money compensation On 29th January, 1954, the notes paper of the then District Munsif (said to be Mr. S. Srinivasan) showed that it was reported to him that the matter had been settled, which would normally mean that it was completely settled, leaving nothing more to be settled. But it appeared, later on, that an important matter