Revision challenged rejection of an application to set aside a 1974 compromise decree as forged. The High Court found the revision not maintainable for non-joinder of Basudeo Prasad Yadav's heirs and held the court below had followed its remand direction, finding the compromise genuine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVISION No.160 of 2017
======================================================
Bindeshwari Yadav Son of Late Kusum Lal Yadav, R/o Garhiya, P.S.Krityanand Nagar, Distt.- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA CAV ORDER
30 25-06-2024
This Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the learned Munsif, Sadar Purnea in Miscellaneous Case No. 86 of 1987, whereby the learned Court below rejected the petition dated 15th July, 1987 filed by Basudeo Prasad Yadav and Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav (petitioners) under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Patna High Court C.R. No.160 of 2017(30) dt.25-06-2024 2/10
for setting aside the decree dated 06.09.1974 passed on the basis of compromise in Title Suit No. 322 of 1974 by the learned Munsif Sadar, Purnea, whereby a compromise was entered into and decree was drawn after accepting the compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Patna High Court C.R. No.160 of 2017(30) dt.25-06-2024 3/10
1959 on payment of valuable consideration and put her in possession of the suit land. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is coming in khas cultivating possession of the suit land with her own ploughs and bullocks and has been enjoying usufructs thereof exclusively without any hindrance. Suddenly the defendant no. 2 started threatening the plaintiff/opposite party for forceful dispossession, hence necessitated institution of the suit. The said suit bearing Title Suit No. 322 of 1974 was filed by original plaintiff/opposite party on 29.06.1974.
Patna High Court C.R. No.160 of 2017(30) dt.25-06-2024 4/10
in possession of the same since the date of purchase.
claimed the aforesaid land on the basis of decree. The original petitioners of Miscellaneous Case No. 86 of 1987 came to the court and consulted their lawyer and on 20.05.1987, filed an information slip on 21.05.1987. It was reported by the office that the Title Suit No. 322 of 1974 was decreed on 06.09.1974 on the basis of a compromise petition. Thereafter, the petitioners as well as Basudeo Prasad Yadav got the record of Title Suit inspected on 04.07.1987. It transpired that the said suit was filed on 29.06.1974 and no Talbana for summons was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party of that suit. On 02.08.1974 a compromise petition was filed and the suit was decreed on 06.09.1974. The petitioner and Basudeo Prasad Yadav filed an application purported to be under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the compromise decree bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 86 of 1987.
Patna High Court C.R. No.160 of 2017(30) dt.25-06-2024 5/10
petition, which is liable to be set aside. The court below after hearing the parties allowed the petition and set aside the compromise decree on 23.08.1997 passed by learned Munsif, Sadar Purnea.
Patna High Court C.R. No.160 of 2017(30) dt.25-06-2024 6/10
AW-1 and stated that he had not appeared in Title Suit No. 322 of 1974 and he had no knowledge about the suit. He did not file Vakalatnama nor appointed any advocate. He did not file any compromise petition. He denied his signature on the compromise petition and the Vakalatnama. In his crossexamination and on his admission, his signature on the verification of miscellaneous petition and on the Vakalatnama of miscellaneous petition, were marked as Exhibit-A and A1. He did not know the advocate Vimlendu Chaudhary. It is further discussed by the learned lower court that AW-5 namely, Basudeo Prasad Yadav has not denied the genuineness of compromise rather he said that during chakbandi, he learnt that Kadam Lal (husband of the plaintiff) obtained a decree with regard to the disputed land, then he filed this miscellaneous case. He denied to have filed any compromise petition. No other evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner on this point. There is no evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner to prove that forgery was committed by the plaintiff/opposite party upon the court and upon the opposite party/petitioner. Mere denial of signing on Vakalatnama and compromise petition is not sufficient. The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to prove that forgery has been committed upon the court. From perusal of
Patna High Court C.R. No.160 of 2017(30) dt.25-06-2024 7/10
evidence of AW-1, Bindeshwari Yadav, it is crystal clear that signature of petitioner has been examined by the handwriting expert and the same was reported to be signed by this petitioner. The learned court below further held that this is the reason for non-examination of handwriting expert. OPW No. 6 stated that he knew the petitioner at that time and they signed the Vakalatnama before him then he accepted Vakalatnama (Exhibit-F). Basudeo Prasad Yadav and Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav put their signature on the compromise petition before him. The compromise petition was drafted at Vakalatkhana. He had seen the plaint. Under the said circumstances, the learned lower court accepted the evidence of OPW-6. OPW-6 stated in his evidence that compromise petition in Title Suit No. 322 of 1974 was prepared in Purnea Court. Vimlendu Chaudhary was the advocate of Basudeo Prasad Yadav and Bindeshwari Yadav. Both the advocates jointly prepared the compromise petition. At that time both the advocates, Basudeo, Bindeshwari, he and his wife and Tej Narayan Roy were present. Rookmani Devi, Basudeo and Bindeshwari after being aware of the recital, put their LTIs and signature over it. Thereafter, both the petitioners put their signatures (Exhibit-D) on the petition. The signatures of the Basudeo and Bindeshwari was sent to expert. The report
Patna High Court C.R. No.160 of 2017(30) dt.25-06-2024 8/10
of the expert is on record which shows that the expert has given report that signatures on compromise petition are the signatures of Basudeo and Bindeshwari.
Patna High Court C.R. No.160 of 2017(30) dt.25-06-2024 9/10
although, during the pendency of Miscellaneous Case No. 86 of 1987, the heirs of Basudeo Prasad Yadav, original defendant no. 1 (petitioner no. 1 in miscellaneous case) were substituted on 30.08.2004. It is submitted that there is specific direction by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1846 of 1987 to decide the matter afresh after recording specific finding with regard to the genuineness of the compromise petition on the basis of evidence already adduced by the parties. The said direction has elaborately dealt with by the lower court and held that both the parties have signed the compromise petition and the compromise petition is genuine one and the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 322 of 1974 was rightly recorded in terms of compromise.
Patna High Court C.R. No.160 of 2017(30) dt.25-06-2024 10/10
dismissed.
(Khatim Reza, J)
premchand/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compromise petition in Title Suit No. 322 of 1974 was signed and filed by the defendants and is genuine.
Whether the civil revision is maintainable without impleading the heirs of Basudeo Prasad Yadav, vendor of both parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bindeshwari Yadav
Naresh Yadav
Dinesh Yadav
Akhilesh Yadav
Meena Devi
Uma Devi
Khatim Reza
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
