Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The parties compromised on the understanding that the first defendant should pay Rs. 402-1-10, as poruppu, i.e., about half the amount which he was paying previously. The agreement was not of the nature of an executory contract like that in Srish Chandra Roy v. Banomali Roy 31 C. 584 : 8 C.W.N. 594 : 6 Bom. L.R. 501 : 14 M.L.J. 185 : 2 A.L.J. 31 : 31 I.A. 103 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 677 (P.C.). Clause VIII of the agreement, referring to Act VIII of 1865, which was then the rent law in force, provides that no pattas or muchilikas need be executed. The document was stamped as a permanent lease for a rent of Rs. 402 and a release of the rights under the gift deed of 1895. There was no defeasance clause providing for divestment of the rights in the event of either party breaking any of the terms of the agreement. The consideration was executed consideration, the trustee having abstained from bringing a suit for recovery of possession and the first defendant having agreed to pay poruppu of Rs. 402. In Srish Chandra Roy v. Banomali Roy 31 C. 584 : 8 C.W.N. 594 : 6 Bom. L.R. 501 : 14 M.L.J. 185 : 2 A.L.J. 31 : 31 I.A. 103 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 677 (P.C.), there was a promise to execute a lease of the suit mauzas and in that respect, the agreement was executory;but the settlement in the present case left nothing to be done by the parties in future except to pay and receive poruppu at the rate agreed.

8. When the plaintiff brought O.S. No. 157 of 1913 to recover possession of the village the defendants, in their written statement para. 37, immediately asserted that they were no longer bound to pay poruppu under the terms of the agreement of 24th April 1902, as the plaintiff had broken the agreement by bringing that suit. In that suit, however, neither party was willing to abide by the compromise. The defendants relied upon the absolute gift made by the Rajah's father and the plaintiff relied on that gift being voidable on account of undue influence. In the decision of the suit it was made clear that the contentions of neither party were correct and that both sides were bound by the settlement As the settlement was not an executory contract I am of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to sue to enforce its terms and that he is not disqualified by having sued for a greater relief in O.S. No. 157 of 1913 as his previous claim that he was entitled to poruppu at the rate of Rs. 804 does not prevent him from now claiming that he can recover at least Rs. 402 per annum. The suit is thus distinguishable form that in Srish Chandra Roy v. Banomali Roy 31 C. 584 : 8 C.W.N. 594 : 6 Bom. L.R. 501 : 14 M.L.J. 185 : 2 A.L.J. 31 : 31 I.A. 103 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 677 (P.C.) which was a case of an executory contract and a suit for specific performance. In Ganga Varapu Krishna Venamma v. Naraparaju Venkata Mukunda Row 4 Ind. CAS. 303 : 7 M.L.T. 33. 33 M. 216, where there was a compromise which finally settled the right of the parties and nothing more had to be done to give effect to it, it was held by this Court, that the conduct of the executant in acting in a manner inconsistent with the compromise did not justify the other Party in repudiating it and Srish Chandra Roy v. Banomali Roy 31 C. 584 : 8 C.W.N. 594 : 6 Bom. L.R. 501 : 14 M.L.J. 185 : 2 A.L.J. 31 : 31 I.A. 103 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 677 (P.C.) was distinguished.