Haripada Malik & Anr vs Birendra Nath Malik & Ors on 8 January, 2021
26. I am not in a position to accept such argument advanced by the
learned Advocate for the appellants. If the pleadings in the plaint are
closely examined it seems to be clear that the plaintiffs prayed for a
declaration that the purported compromise petition filed in Case No.21 of
1954 under Section 44(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act was
fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiffs on the ground that petition
of compromise was not signed by the plaintiffs. It is held in the case of
Molla Sirajul Haque vs. Gorachand Mullick reported in AIR 1993 Cal
58 that compromise not signed by the parties cannot be recorded by the
court. Validity of consent order depends wholly upon legal validity of
agreement on which it rests. It is already stated that the appellants did
not challenge the finding of learned trial court regarding fraudulent
nature of the compromise on the basis of which name of Nikunja Bihari
Mali recorded as bargadar in respect of plot No.117. At this stage the
appellants cannot challenge the said finding of the trial court and urge
that the compromise petition was legal, valid and effective. Last but not
the least, on proper consideration of the pleadings of the parties, this
Court is of the view that the suit was not for denial of barga right of
original defendant No.1, but it was for declaration that the compromise
13
decree was fraudulent, illegal and inoperative on the basis of which the
original defendant No.1 was declared as bargadar in respect of plot
No.117.