Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The trial court appointed a Commissioner for inspection of the suit site and record the evidence of the parties. On the appreciation of the evidence led by the parties and the report of the Commissioner, the trial court decreed the suit filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said decree, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed an appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Panipat. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree by placing reliance on the compromise (Exhibit  D1) dated 14.10.1985 which was said to have been effected between the parties in the police station. In paragraph 9 of the Judgment, the Court has held that the compromise (Exhibit  D1) dated 14.10.1985 is a very relevant piece of evidence which admittedly has been signed by Ajad Singh but about which no such plea has been raised by the appellant either in the amended plaint or in the replication filed by him on 4.6.1987 as would enable him to avoid the compromise. There is also no pleading from the plaintiff-appellant's side that the said compromise (Exhibit  D1) was obtained by the police forcibly. He has not stated anything about the compromise in his examination-in-chief and only in the cross-examination he has stated that the compromise was effected by use of force in the police station. On perusal of the compromise, the Court has further held that both the sides have resolved the dispute and respondent No. 1 could remain in possession of suit property, as, according to the compromise, the appellant has already relinquished the right over the site in dispute on 14.10.1985 (Exhibit  D1) itself. Thus, it is made out that the trial court has wrongly rejected the said compromise (Exhibit-D1) by observing that no such permission was obtained to effect the compromise in the police station. The Court further summarized the effect of compromise that the appellant has relinquished his right in the suit land in view of the settlement (Exhibit  D1) dated 14.10.1985 itself and about which he remained mum and knowingly concealed this fact in the pleadings. Thus, after the examination of the said compromise (Exhibit  D1), it is made out that the plaintiff-appellant agreed to withdraw the suit and conceded that Chatra, the defendant No. 1 shall continue to remain in possession of the suit property. On these findings the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the so-called compromise (Exhibit  D1) was held to be binding on the parties.