S.K. Dubey, J. -- 1. In this second appeal, the two sisters who were fighting for the agricultural land situated at survey No. 957, area 7 Bigha, 1 Biswa in village Jaura Khurd, District Morena, and a residential house situated at village Shikarpur, left by their father Sardar Singh, have flied an application (I.A. No. VI of 1989) on 17.10.1989 under O. 23, R. 3, CPC for disposing of the appeal in terms of the compromise.

2. Before recording compromise and passing a judgment and decree in terms of the compromise one Rajendra Kumar Goyal filed an application (I.A. No. V/1989) on 20.10.1989 under O. 1, R. 10 and O. 22, R. 10 read with S. 151, CPC stating therein that during the pendency of this appeal Pragobai, the plaintiff, had entered into an agreement for sale of her one-half share in the agricultural land on 23.8.1988 for a consideration of Rs.1,05,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid to her as earnest money and the balance is to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed. Rajendra Kumar Goyal alleged that the two sisters have colluded to enter into a compromise to jeopardise his rights and interest, therefore, leave be granted to continue the appeal and he be ordered to be joined as a party to the appeal. The purchasers Rameshchandra Goyal, Vijaypal Singh, Dinesh Baboo Agrawal, Vinod Kumar Goyal, Mahendra Kumar and Ramkumar Bansal filed an application (I.A. No. VII/1989) on 3.11.1989 under O. 22, R. 10, CPC with an affidavit of Rameshchandra Goyal, and photostat copies of two registered sale-deeds dated 11th October, 1989 (Annexure A and B) and a photostat copy of a general power of attorney executed by respondent Pragobai in favour of Jagdish Singh Jadon, alleging that Pragobai through Jagdish Singh Jadon, the holder of the general power of attorney, has sold the disputed land on 11.10.1989. The sale is with the consent of Rajendra Kumar Goyal, therefore, the rights and interest in the subject matter of the suit stand transferred and assigned, leave be granted to them to continue the appeal and they be impleaded as parties to protect their interest and rights in the suit property.

3. The appellant Baijanti opposed these applications and filed reply with an affidavit stating that Pragobai is an illiterate lady, she never executed any general power of attorney in favour of Jagdish Singh Jadon, neither Pragobai entered into any agreement to sell the property, nor any sale-deed was executed by her. No consideration was received by Pragobai. Jagdish Singh Jadon has no authority or power to sell or dispose of Pragobai's property. The documents are forged, false and personified. It was averred that the lis is already settled by way of compromise and stands terminated, hence, the dispute which involves complicated questions of fact and law, cannot be decided in this appeal, the purchasers who are strangers, are free to file a regular civil suit. Pragobai also filed the reply with affidavit on the same lines.

4. Shri N.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant Baijanti, Shri D.K. Kothari, learned counsel for respondent Pragobai, contended that both sisters have entered into a compromise, wherein Pragobai has admitted the claim of Baijanti and also the genuineness of the will executed by their father. In the circumstances no leave can be granted for allowing the strangers to continue the appeal, as after compromise the lis between the two sisters has come to an end. Besides, it was contended that the general power of attorney and the sale-deeds are forged, false and personified documents, hence, if the strangers, on the basis of these documents, want to establish their rights, that can only be done by a regular civil suit, and not in this appeal. Reliance was placed on Rambharose v. Tulsiram (1965 JLJ-SN 132). To demonstrate that the sale-deeds are forged, Shri Jain pointed out that the suit land is situated in Morena District, while the deeds were fraudulently executed and registered at Bhind, a place wh