SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.N. Kirpal and M.B. Shah, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1988. D/d. 8.2.2000.

Most. Jiria Devi (dead) by L.Rs. and others - Appellants

Versus

Smt. Chhatiya Devi and others - Respondent

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 6 - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 58 - Declaration of title and possession - Orders passed by Court on the basis of compromise document under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code - Document of compromise executed after proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were over - Document admitted with objection - Cannot be relied upon in evidence - Filing of suit for title and possession - Postulates that possession of disputed land was with Ist set of defendants - Valid compromise under Section 145 not possible - Judge and order of High Court, lower appellate Court set aside.

[Para 6]

JUDGMENT

The respondents before us had filed a suit for declaration of title and possession impleading two sets of defendants. The first set of defendants are the appellants in this Court and the second set of defendants are the ones from whom the plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the land in question.

2. The plaintiffs had placed reliance on an alleged document. Exh. F stated to be a compromise arrived at between the first and the second set of defendants whereby 29 bighas of land including the land in question which measures 52 decimals, is alleged to have been given to the second set of defendants. As already noticed, it is from this second set of defendants that the plaintiffs alleged that they had purchased a parcel of land measuring 52 decimals of land which is the subject-matter of the present proceedings.

3. The trial Court after going into the evidence on record took into consideration the fact that the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 had concluded with the passing of the order dated 8th April, 1948 and the alleged compromise Exh. F was supposed to be dated 5th May, 1948. The trial Court dismissed the suit having come to the conclusion that Exh. F, the certified copy of the alleged compromise, was not helpful to the plaintiffs.

4. The lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court which led to the filing of a second appeal to the High Court. Before the High Court the contention was that the lower appellate Court had not examined the evidence which had been produced by the appellants herein. The High Court took note of the fact that in the list of documents which was filed along with the documents in the trial Court, with respect to the entry qua the document Exh. F it was stated "Aapati Ke Sath". This list of documents was signed by the trial Court. Notwithstanding this statement, the High Court came to the conclusion that the document Exh. F had been admitted into evidence without objection and basing on the said objection the High Court came to the conclusion that as per the said compromise evidenced by Exh. F, the land in question fell to the share of the second set of defendants, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs.

5. The case of the appellants herein before the trial Court clearly was that there was no compromise on 5th May, 1948 and there were no proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 The story of allotment of land by Compromise in Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 proceedings was stated to be imaginary and false.

6. The High Court having come to the conclusion that the list of documents bears signatures of the trial Court and in the said list with regard to the entry concerning Exh. F it is mentioned "Aapati Ke Sath", could not then have come to the conclusion that there was no objection raised to the document merely because on the document itself or in the order-sheet it was not mentioned that there was an objection raised to the admissibility of the document. If the High Court had regarded the words "Aapati Ke Sath" as having been added to the list of documents after the trial Court had signed the said list, one could have understood the reasoning of the High Court. The High Court has not held that the list of documents contained any forgery. That apart, when the alleged order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is stated to have been passed on 8th April, 1948, there could not have been any occasion for the parties to have entered into a compromise in purported proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 after that date. Exh. F is stated to be a certified copy of compromise dated 5th May, 1948, when no proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were pending. In our opinion, therefore, the lower appellate Court and the High Court should not have placed any reliance on Exh. F. It also seems to us to be strange that when one parcel of land had already been purchased by the second set of defendants in a Court auction, then how is it possible that the first set of defendants would agree by the alleged compromise that the balance land of 29 bighas should also go to the second set of defendants. Furthermore, if there had been an order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 based on a compromise, the effect of that would have been that the possession in respect of 29 bighas of land would have been restored to the second set of defendants. In that event, there would have been no occasion for the plaintiffs, as successors-in-interest of the second set of defendants, to file a suit for title and possession. Filing of the suit postulates that the possession with regard to the land in question remained with the first set of defendants. This could not have been possible if there had been any valid compromise between the parties resulting in an order passed under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court and of the lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court restored.

Appeal allowed.