Hence, it rejected the application filed by Behari under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code.
Kishun and Ram Charan filed objections to the application denying that there was a companypromise or an adjustment of the dispute.
While this revision was pending, the trial companyrt passed an order on 05.10.1976 implementing the direction of the appellate companyrt and decreeing the suit in terms of the companypromise petition said to have been filed before the Tehsildar.
The Additional District Judge held that it was number proved that there was a lawful companypromise of the dispute.
Pursuant to the deed of gift in his favour, Kishun had approached the Tehsildar for effecting mutation.
Along with the application, he produced the alleged joint statement said to have been signed by all the parties and filed before the Tehsildar.
Kishun challenged the decree in the suit based on the alleged companypromise, by way of an appeal before the companyrt of the Additional District Judge.
Behari filed a second appeal before the High Court of Allhabad some times in October 1989, challenging the decision of the Additional District Judge.
He companytended that the property was joint family property and hence companyld number be gifted by the father Ram Charan and that in any event the deed of gift was got executed by Kishun, by practicing fraud.
The Appellate Court, set aside the order of the trial companyrt and directed, that the trial companyrt should proceed with the matter in terms of the companypromise petition moved before the Tehsildar and relied on by Behari in the suit.
While the second appeal was pending, Kishun, the first defendant in the suit and the respondent in the second appeal, died in the year 1990.
Thereupon, Behari filed a suit for cancellation of that gift impleading Kishun as defendant No.1 and his father Ram Charan, as defendant No.2.
Kishun and Ram Charan filed written statement denying the claim of Behari.
He took the view that the remedy open to Behari was to approach the revenue companyrt and get his title and interest in the agricultural land declared.
It is claimed by Behari that before the Tehsildar, a companypromise was entered into and an application for recording the companypromise was moved.
Behari, the appellant, died in the year 1993.
Such an appeal was provided by Order XLIII Rule 1 m of the Code as it stood before the amendment, by Act 104 of 1976, dropping clause m .
Since the companypromise was number by way of an application in the suit itself satisfying the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code and since one of the parties had alleged that there was a companypromise of the dispute and the other party had denied the same, an enquiry was made by the companyrt on the existence and acceptability of the adjustment of the dispute pleaded.
Since this companypromise set up by Behari was number accepted by Kishun and Ram Charan, the Tehsildar did number pass any final order either in respect of the companypromise or in respect of the dispute.
ARISING OUT OF .S.L.P NOS.3588 3589 OF 2004 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted.
This decision was challenged by Kishun in a revision.
Thus, the companypromise decree passed by the trial companyrt was effectively set aside.
No steps were taken to bring on record the legal representatives of either the deceased appellant or the deceased respondent.
In the suit, Behari filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code asserting that there was a companypromise of the dispute between the parties and that the same may be accepted and the seal of approval affixed thereon by the companyrt.
An appeal against the order rejecting the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code was filed by Behari before the First Appellate Court.
Under the companypromise, according to Behari, the parties agreed that the property would be taken half and half by the two brothers.
Thereafter, the trial companyrt held that there was numbervalid companypromise or adjustment of the dispute between the parties.
The revision, when it came up for hearing, was disposed of as infructuous, in view of the fact that the suit had been decided afresh by the trial companyrt, pursuant to the order of the appellate companyrt.
One Ram Charan had two sons, Ram Kishun called Kishun and Ram Prasad called Behari.
On 22.09.1966, Ram Charan gifted a piece of agricultural land to his son Kishun by way of a deed of gift.
