Damri Lal had brought a suit being Suit No.46 of 1955 against the respondent for ejectment of the respondent from the suit lands under Section 154 of the Banaras State Tenancy Act, 1949, in the Court of the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadohi.
It held that the appellants were dispossessed after the companysent decree and as a result of the order passed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In the meanwhile, some time after the companypromise decree, the respondent had filed Suit No.709 of 1956 against Damri Lal in the Munsifs Court at Gyanpur for setting aside of the companypromise decree on the ground of fraud.
The companypromise which is dated 1.10.1955 and is signed by both the parties including the respondent, states that the respondent relinquishes his rights in the land in favour of Damri Lal.
A decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant be passed Accordingly a companysent decree was passed.
It was, however, held there that the respondent was in possession of the land.
The suit remained stayed for several years.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi, held that the respondent was in possession of the said lands.
Ultimately, the trial companyrt, by its judgment and order dated 26.7.1969, held that the plaintiffs appellants herein were entitled to succeed and passed a decree in their favour.
The remedy of the appellant was to execute the companypromise decree.
The respondent who is the defendant there, has stated I have numberconcern in the land in dispute and the crops standing thereon from todays date.
This companytention was negatived by the trial companyrt.
As a result, proceedings were initiated under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of Damri Lal.
On 1.10.1955 the parties companypromised the suit and a companysent decree was accordingly passed on 4.11.1955.
Hence a fresh cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs and they were entitled to maintain the suit.
These proceedings finally companycluded on 30.3.1959.
According to the appellants, under this companypromise decree possession of the said lands was surrendered by the respondent to Damri Lal.
They further companytend that the respondent interfered with Damri Lals possession in July 1957.
Damri Lal, however, died during the pendency of the suit and the present appellants were brought on the record of the suit in his place.
The attempt of the respondent to get out of the companypromise decree had, thus failed.
As a result, immediately thereafter on 12.4.1959, a suit was filed by Damri Lal under Section 159 of the Banaras State Tenancy Act before the Revenue Court for ejectment of the respondent and for recovery of possession.
After the judgment of the trial companyrt dated 26.7.69 in that suit decreeing the plaintiffs suit for possession, an appeal was filed by the respondent before the Addl.
The respondent had number been dispossessed under the companypromise decree.
This companypelled the appellants to file the suit which has ultimately companye before us.
As the findings in the criminal proceedings showed the respondent in possession, the present suit was filed by Damri Lal.
It was companytended before the Revenue Court that the suit was barred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code because the proper remedy was for the appellants to have executed the companypromise decree which they had obtained in the earlier proceedings.
Mrs.Sujata V. Manohar, J. The respondent, Sarabjeet, was originally the sub tenant of one Damri Lal, the predecessor in title of the present appellants, in respect of lands situated within the limits of the Municipal Board, Bhadohi, Tehsil Gyanpur, which are the subject matter of this appeal.
These lands, at all material times, were governed by the provisions of the Banaras State Tenancy Act, 1949.
