JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit brought by the appellant to get a decree obtained against him by the respondents set aside. The facts of the case are that in the year 1923 a suit was instituted by the respondents in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Gonda, for sale of certain property against the appellant and some other persons. The case was contested by the appellant and the date when the oase was fixed for the last hearing, which is the material date for the purpose of this appeal, was 12th January 1924. On that date the appellant Bhagwan Dutt Pande was represented by a pleader of Gonda named Babu Satish Chandra Banerji. One Sheo Sahai his general agent also appeared for him. The plaintiff's evidence had been closed and a witness was being examined on behalf of the appellant. During the course of his examination Sheo Sahai made a statement in Court by means of which he admitted the plaintiff's claim. The result of this admission was that on its basis the suit was decreed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Gonda, to whose Court the suit had been transferred for trial The present suit has been brought by the appellant for setting aside the decree passed on 12th January 1924, on the basis of the admission made by his general agent Sheo Sahai on the ground that he colluded with the defendants-respondents, who were plaintiffs in that case, and made a statement on the basis of which the decree had been passed. They further alleged that the said general agent of theirs had, no power to admit any claim or make any compromise.

3. The learned Munsif of Utraula at Gonda, who tried the present case, came to the conclusion that the plea of fraud urged by the plaintiff-appellant had not been established and that Sheo Sahai, their general agent, had authority to make the admission on his behalf and therefore the decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge on 12th January 1924 was a good decree and could not be set aside. On these findings he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff-appellant carried the matter in appeal to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gonda, who has come to the conclusion that under the mukhtarnama executed by the plaintiff-appellant in favour of Sheo Sahai no power had been given to the latter to admit any claim or make any compromise on his behalf, and that, therefore, he had no authority to make the statement, which he did on 12th January 1924. He, however, held that the suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant was maintainable, the proper remedy for him being to apply to the Court, which passed the decree for setting it aside by review of judgment. In this view of the case he maintained the decree of the learned Munsif and dismissed the appeal. It is against this decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gonda that the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant. It is now again urged by the appellant before us that the learned Subordinate Judge has taken a wrong view of law in holding that the plaintiff-appellant's suit was not maintainable. On behalf of the respondents it is again urged that Sheo Sahai, the general agent of the plaintiff-appellant, had full authority to make the admission, which he did and consequently the appeal of the plaintiff must fail. We now proceed to discuss both these points.

4. Regarding the power of Sheo Sahai to admit the claim we are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal. The original mukhtarnama has not been produced, but a certified copy of it taken from the registration office has heen produced. Referring to para. 9 of that document we find that it clearly mentions that the mukhtars (general agents) appointed under the deed would not be entitled to execute any deed in writing or to take-any proceedings in Court, the result of which would be to injuriously affect the property of the executants. Apart from this they were, however, given power to conduct the cases on behalf of the executants in C