Raghbir Singh vs Lilu Ram and Others

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—Petitioner''s contention is that he was a minor when decree in Civil Suit No. 222-C of 1989 was passed. His father Birkha had no right to suffer that decree in favour of Lilu Ram Respondent with regard to the agricultural land, which is a property of his joint family. Hence he prays that Lilu Ram be restrained from alienating the suit property till the decision of the suit filed by him against his father, mother and Lilu Ram.

Petitioner''s Learned Counsel relying on Kulraj Singh Paul Vs. Ranjit Kaur and Another, contended that Lilu Ram Respondent has placed certain documents on record alongwith his affidavit, but at the revision stage additional evidence cannot be produced. He further contended that as Lilu Ram Respondent has tried to state that Civil Suit No. 289-C of 1989 was compromised by his parents, himself and Lilu Ram, therefore, this decree is binding on the Plaintiff. He also contended that when Civil Suit No. 289-C of 1989 was filed, the Plaintiff was a minor. Under Order 32 Rule 7(1) and 7(1-A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, no permission was sought from the Court to enter into that compromise. It is the duty of the Court to safeguard the interests of the minor hence even if Civil Suit No. 289-C of 1989 is decreed between the parties on the basis of their compromise, it does not bind the Plaintiff who was a minor at that time.

Respondent Lilu Ram''s Learned Counsel has placed reliance on decrees passed in various civil suits between the parties. He contended that Birkha and his elder son executed three mortgage deeds and four sale deeds in his favour. Lilu Ram purchased 76 Kanals of agricultural land from Birkha and his elder son. Civil Suits No. 221-C, 222-C, 276-C and 289-C and 1123, 1125 and 1126 of 1991 were compromised between the parties. Decrees were passed in all these suits on November 20, 1991, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties. In this compromise Lilu Ram accepted that he will be the owner of 26 Kanals only though earlier he purchased 76 Kanals for valuable consideration. Even now the Plaintiff, who is son of Birkha, wants to deprive him of the fruits of the aforesaid decrees by filing the suit.

Respondent''s leaned counsel further contended that earlier also the Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 173 of 1992 against Lilu Ram, wherein ex-parte stay order was obtained by the Plaintiff, which was vacated on March 17,1992. The Plaintiff has filed this suit on October 8, 1993 but in this case he has not disclosed the facts that in Civil Suit No. 173 of 1992 filed by him earlier with regard to the suit land, stay though granted at the initial stage was vacated on March 17, 1992. He contended that non-disclosure of relevant material documents with a view to obtain advantage amounts to fraud. To buttress his contention he has relied on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, He further contended that in this plaint the Plaintiff has not pleaded any fact with regard to the compromise recorded in civil Suit No. 289-C of 1989, wherein this Plaintiff was also a party. Relying on Sajjan Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1995(3) AISJ 260, he contended that a person who claims an equitable relief must approach the Court with clean hands. Since the Plaintiff-petitioner is guilty of concealment of facts, he is not entitled to be heard even on merits.

From the documents on record, it is evident that there were seven civil suits pending between Lilu Ram and his sons on one side and Plaintiffs parents, elder brother and in one case even the Plaintiff on the other side. All these suits were compromised on November 20, 1991. In Civil Suit No. 289-C of 1989 the Plaintiff was a party, though this fact is evident from the lower appellate Court''s impugned order that an application under Order 32 CPC was filed but no order was passed permitting Birkha to compromise the suit on behalf of the minor Plaintiff. This is a question of fact, which can be enquired into during trial, but simply on that count the Plaintiff is not entitled to get the discretionary relief which he craves for, especially in view of the fact that he has deliberately concealed the aforesaid facts.

In view of the above findings, there is no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed accordingly.