1. This is an appeal from an order remanding the case so that it be tried de novo and the parties be allowed opportunities of producing additional oral and documentary evidence.
2. The plaintiff brought a suit praying that a certain spout opened by the defendant towards his court-yard should be closed. The defence was that this spout was an old one and not a recent one, and that, in any case it threw water on the defendant's own land. On the 10th of December, 1923, both the parties made statements before the Court that they did not want to produce any evidence whatsoever, and that whatever the Court, after making a local inspection, decided, that would be acceptable to both the parties. This was duly signed by the parties, In pursuance of this no further evidence was recorded by the Munsif, and he made a local inspection of the place and came to the conclusion that the spout was a recent one and not an old one at all. He was further inclined to hold that the water from this spout did not fall on the defendant's land. He accordingly decreed the claim.
3. The defendant went up in appeal, and the lower Appellate Court has set aside that decree the lower Appellate Court has remarked that the learned Munsif kept no notes of inspection, and has made no reference in his judgment to the documents that were filed by the parties. And then again, although the parties had clearly stated that they would not produce any more evidence, the lower Appellate Court curiously enough, has directed that there should be a trial de novo and further evidence, both oral and documentary, should be produced by both parties the order of remand cannot possibly be upheld.
4. The substantial dispute between the parties was as to whether the spout in question should or should not be closed. Instead of incurring the expense involved in producing a lot of oral evidence the parties decided that they should not produce any evidence whatsoever and should abide by the decision of the learned Munsif after he had made a local inspection. The document which recorded their agreement did not at all say that any inspection, notes should be prepared by the Munsif and be left on the record nor did it say that he should necessarily refer to all the documentary evidence that was produced by the parties. The matter in dispute was left entirely to the decision of the learned Munsif, and, in our opinion, the parties cannot now resile from their agreement and must be bound by the decision of the learned Munsif whether it was, as a matter of fact, right or wrong. The decision, therefore must be treated to have been one based on a compromise between the parties and was no longer open to appeal. For the sake of reference we may refer to the case of Himmanchal Singh v. Jatwar Singh A.I.R. 1924 All. 570 and that of Ram Sunder Misra v. Jai Karan Singh : AIR1925All271 .
5. We accordingly allow this appeal, and setting aside the order of the Court below restore the decree of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts.