JUDGMENT :- This appeal is directed against the decision of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Linked Court of Gonda-Bahraich at Gonda, allowing the appeal of the plaintiff respondent and reversing the decree passed by the trial Court by which the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be, briefly, stated as follows:

The plaintiff alleged herself to be the sirdar of several plots situated in village Basantpur, Pargana Tulsipur and the defendant had no right, title and interest in the same. She contended that the defendant filed a false suit in the Court of the Judicial Officer, Balrampur under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 29th September, 1961 against the plaintiff and on 30th September, 1961 he filed a compromise purporting to have been arrived at between the parties in the suit. She, however, did not have any knowledge of the institution of the suit or of the compromise petition. In the month of October, 1964, the defendant started interfering with her possession on the land in question on the basis of the compromise decree and then she came to know that some case was filed by the defendant. She got the file of the case inspected and then it transpired that some lawyer put in appearance in the case on her behalf and made the compromise purporting to be on her behalf. She asserted that she never engaged any counsel nor authorised him to put in appearance in the case and file the compromise. The entire proceedings were fraudulent and the alleged compromise decree was not binding on her. She, therefore, sought cancellation of the compromise decree dated 30th September, 1961.

2. In defence the defendant pleaded that he was the sirdar of the land in suit and the plaintiff had taken wrongful possession over the same. Consequently he had to file the suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Prior to the institution of that suit Panchayat between the parties in the village took place wherein the plaintiff admitted the claim of the defendant and it was decided therein that the dispute should be settled by filing compromise in the Court, hence that suit was filed and the plaintiff entered into a compromise which was signed and verified by her counsel whom she had engaged by executing a vakalatnama. It was also alleged that the suit filed by the present respondent was barred by time and that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had engaged Sri Shaukat Husain as a counsel in the suit in which the compromise decree was passed and had instructed him to file the compromise on her behalf, that the plaintiff had knowledge of the institution of the suit and passing of the decree in question. He, therefore, held that the suit was barred by time. In regard to the question of jurisdiction it was observed by the trial Court that the counsel for the defendant did not press the issue. Despite that the trial Court proceeded to decide the issue relating to jurisdiction and held that the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court. The appellate Court below allowed the appeal and decreed the suit holding that no Panchayat in the village took place in which it was decided that the plaintiff would go to Court and file a compromise petition. It also held that no compromise was filed on her behalf. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate Court below refused to place any reliance on the statement of Sri Shaukat Husain vakil. It recorded a finding that the compromise decree was obtained by fraudulent means and was, therefore, liable to be cancelled. The finding of the trial Court on the issue of jurisdiction was upheld. It was, however, held that the suit was not barred by time. Aggrieved by the said decision the defendant has now come up to this Court in second appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the suit was barred by time and that it w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document