IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Ramesam, J.
(Upputuri) Punnayya And Anr.
Versus
(Polavarapur) Lingayya And Ors.
Decided On : 3 May, 1927
Compromise - Joint Estate - Interpretation of compromise and its binding effect on joint estate
Fact of the Case:
The court found that the compromise was entered into by the plaintiff and that the postcards were genuine. The razinama stated that the suit should be withdrawn, but the court held that it was not binding on plaintiff 2. The court decided to give no effect to the compromise and allow the whole suit to proceed, with plaintiff 1 being required to refund Rs. 100 to the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the Civil Revision Petition to the extent that it gave no effect to the compromise and allowed the whole suit to proceed, with the condition that plaintiff 1 would have to refund Rs. 100 to the defendants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compromise should be binding on plaintiff 1 and its effect on the joint estate. Additionally, the issue of refunding Rs. 100 to the defendants was addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision in Venkata Rao v. Tuljaram Row A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 69 was cited to show that no portion of the joint estate is bound by the compromise. Order 23, Rule 1, Clause (4) was also considered, which shows that one plaintiff cannot withdraw from a suit without the consent of the others.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed to the extent that the compromise was given no effect and the whole suit was allowed to proceed, with plaintiff 1 being required to refund Rs. 100 to the defendants.
Ramesam, J.
1. In revision petition, I am bound by the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the compromise was, as a fact, entered into by the plaintiff. I may add that I am of opinion that the postcards Exs. B and C are genuine and therefore, agree with his finding.
2. The razinama is that the suit should be withdrawn. This razinama is certainly not bidding on plaintiff 2. The question is whether plaintiff 1 should be held to be bound by St. Mr. Raghava Rao at first contended that plaintiff 1 is bound by it so far as his share is concerned. But this amounts to splitting, up the compromise into two separate-compromises and the facts do not justify it. The decision in Venkata Rao v. Tuljaram Row A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 69, shows that no portion of the joint estate is bound by the compromise. Mr. Raghava Rao then contended that plaintiff 2 may press his claim for the whole of the suit property and he would limit his contention to plaintiff 1 only and not his share of the property. But this seems to be a distinction by which nothing is gained. If the whole suit is to be tried, I do not see any object in saying that plaintiff 1 (though not his share) is bound. Moreover, there is Order 23, Rule 1, Clause (4) which shows that one plaintiff cannot withdraw from a suit without the consent of the others. If plaintiff 1 wished to withdraw, he could not do so as plaintiff 2 is a minor, and the next friend is plaintiff 1 himself. In all the circumstances I think the best course is to give no effect to the compromise and allow the whole suit to proceed. But plaintiff 1 will have to refund Rs. 100 to the defendants. To this extent the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
3. If the plaintiffs succeed and in the final decree they get mesne profits, the plaintiffs half-share of the profits will be diminished by Rs. 100, and, if it be-less than Rs. 100, there will be a direction in the decree directing the plaintiff to refund the balance to the defendant.
4. If the plaintiffs do not succeed, the final decree will contain a direction directing plaintiff 1 to refund the sum of Rs. 100 to the defendant. In this Court each party will bear its own costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.