Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. The latest case on the point in our Court is that of Mohendra Nath Biswas v. Shamsunnessa Khatun 27 Ind. Cas. 954 : 21 C.L.J. 157 at p. 163 : 19 C.W.N. 1280 which states the result of the authorities.

29. In dealing with the contention in that case, viz., that the withdrawal of an appeal from a decree dismissing the suit of the female holding Hindu widow's estate was in the nature of a compromise and destroyed the conclusive character of the original decree, which thereupon ceased to be operative as a contested decree, Mookerjee, J., observed as follows: "This view Cannot possibly be sustained for, as was pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Khunni Lal v. Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain 10 Ind. Cas. 477 : 38 I.A. 87 : 15 C.W.N. 545 : 8 A.L.J. 552 : 13 C.L.J. 575 : 13 Bom. L.R. 427: 10 M.L.T. 25 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 432 : 21 M.L.J. 645 : 33 A. 356 (P.C.) and Musammat Hiran Bibi v. Musammat Sohan Bibi 24 Ind. Cas. 309 : 18 C.W.N. 929 : 27 M.L.J. 149 : 1 L.W. 648 (P.C.) a compromise amounting to a bona fide settlement of disputes will bind the reversioner quite as much as a decree on a contest; in other words, that the principle laid down in Katama Natchier v. Srimut Rajah of Shivagunga 9 M.I.A. 539 : 2 W.R. 31 (P.C.); 1 Suth. P.C.J. 520 : 2 Sar. P.C.J. 25 : 19 E.R. 843 is not limited to decrees in suits contested to the end. This rule is subject to the qualification that the Compromise was made bona fide for the benefit of the estate and not for the personal advantage of the limited owner: Tarinee Churn Gangooly v. Watson 12 W.R. 413 : 3 B.L.R.A.C. 437; Indro Kooer v. Abool Burkat 14 W.R. 146; Upendra Narain Myti v. Gopee Nath Bera 9 C. 817 : 12 C.L.R. 356; Sambasiva Ayyar v. Venkateswara Ayyar 31 M. 179 : 3 M.L.T. 369; Kambinayani Javvaji Timmaji Amma Garu v. Kambinayani Javvaji Subbaraju Nayanivaru 5 Ind. Cns. 640 : 33 M. 473 : (1910) M.W.N. 60 : 20 M.L.J. 204 : 7 M.L.T. 340 : 33 M. 473; Rajlakshmi Dasee v. Katyayani Dasee 12 Ind. Cas. 464 : 38 C.639. The view cannot be defended on principle that a qualified owner like a Hindu widow, daughter or mother is bound at her peril to pursue a litigation in respect of the estate in her hands unremittingly to the ultimate Court of Appeal and she cannot bona fide effect a settlement of the matter in controversy, even though such compromise be in the best interests of the estate."