Shri Narayan Shukla,J.-

1. Heard Mr. B.R.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Nazim Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for opposite party No.4.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 5th of May, 2001, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda whereby the revision has been allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The compromise is also under challenge before this court.

3. Against the order dated 24th of October, 1997, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bahraich the petitioner as well as opposite party No.4 both filed revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda. The petitioner filed revision on the ground that once the court below has arrived at conclusion that the petitioner is son of Sant Ram, then there is no occasion for a fresh trial to determine his status. Further the compromise as shown entered into between the parties is absolutely against the interest of the petitioner as the same has been entered into between his mother Smt. Savitri Devi and opposite party No.4. The terms of compromise itself show that it is absolutely against the interest of the petitioner (minor) by his guardian (Savitri Devi). So far as the opposite party No.4 is concerned, he is claiming his right over the land in dispute being the son of Ram Lakhan, who has been brother of Sant Ram. He claimed that Smt. Savitri Devi was wife of Radhey Shyam son of Ram Milan and the petitioner born from the wedlock of Shri Radhey Shyam and Savitri Devi, therefore, he is not son of Sant Ram and therefore, opposite party No.4 is nearest legal heir of Sant Ram to inherit his property after his death.

4. Upon perusal of the order impugned I find that the revisional court has held that the compromise was entered into before the Prescribed Officer, who has certified the same, therefore, it cannot be doubted nor can it be said as a fraudulent document. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is provided that the agreement or compromise should be lawful and an agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule. Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is reads as under:-

"3. Compromise of suit.-Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, (in writing and signed by the parties) or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance wherewith (so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit):

Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.)

Explanation.-An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule."

5. He further submits that under Order 32 Rule 7 it is provided that no next friend or guardian for the suit shall, without the leave of the Court, expressly recorded in the proceedings, enter into any agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor with reference to the suit in which he acts as next friend or guardian. The Order 32 Rule 7 reads as under:-

"7.Agreement or Compromise by next friend or guardian for the suit.-

(1)No next friend or guardian for the suit shall, without the leave of the Court, expressly recorded in th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document