Skip to content


Hukum Singh and anr. Vs. Tunda Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in60Ind.Cas.912
AppellantHukum Singh and anr.
RespondentTunda Singh and ors.
Cases ReferredJagapati Muialiar v. Ekambara Mudaliar
Excerpt:
compromise - vakalatnama authorising vakil to compromise--compromise by vakil, binding effect of. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]......the question must be decided entirely with reference to the terms of the vakalatnama held by the pleader in question. other decisions on the question of principle, such for instance. the case of jagapati muialiar v. ekambara mudaliar 21 m. 274 : 8 m.l.j. 40 : 7 ind. dec (n.s.) 550, are irrelevant. by the vakalatnama the plaintiffs jointly agreed that they would be bound by all acts of their pleader in the course of their suit, and they further expressly specified, amongst the acts which the said pleader might perform 'on their behalf, the presentation to the court of petitions relinquishing the claim, compromising the suit or withdrawing from the suit. the actual words in the vakalatnama are: 'ya baziawa ya sulehnama ya dastbardari dakhil karen.' we find it a little difficult to.....
Judgment:

1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises there were five plaintiffs and two defendants. At a time when all the five plaintiffs were represented by a single Vakil, a compromise was arranged disposing of the suit on certain terms. This compromise was presented to the Court and verified before it by three plaintiffs in person, by both the defendants in person and by the Pleader, who held a power-of attorney on behalf of all the five plaintiffs jointly. At a later date, the two plaintiffs who had not personally signed or presented to the Court the petition of compromise, protested that they had not authorised the Pleader to enter into the same and were not bound by the terms of the compromise, or by the action of their Pleader in presenting the same to the Court. The Court of first instants, overruled this contention and passed a decree in terms of the compromise. The lower Appellate Court has set aside this decision and remanded the suit to the Court of first instance for trial on the merits. The appeal before UB is against this order of remand. In accordance with the principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Jang Bahadur Singh v. Shankar Rai 13 A. 272 (F.B.) A.W.N. (1891) 61 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 170, the question must be decided entirely with reference to the terms of the vakalatnama held by the Pleader in question. Other decisions on the question of principle, such for instance. the case of Jagapati Muialiar v. Ekambara Mudaliar 21 M. 274 : 8 M.L.J. 40 : 7 Ind. Dec (N.S.) 550, are irrelevant. By the vakalatnama the plaintiffs jointly agreed that they would be bound by all acts of their Pleader in the course of their suit, and they further expressly specified, amongst the acts which the said Pleader might perform 'on their behalf, the presentation to the Court of petitions relinquishing the claim, compromising the suit or withdrawing from the suit. The actual words in the vakalatnama are: 'ya baziawa ya sulehnama ya dastbardari dakhil karen.' We find it a little difficult to understand what the learned Subordinate Judge means by saying that these words authorise the Pleader to file a compromise and not to make a compromise. The question for determination is, whether all the plaintiffs including the two who subsequently called in question the authority of the Pleader, are or are not bound by his act in presenting this petition of compromise to the Court and expressing on their behalf agreement to its terms. We think they are so bound. The order under appeal is accordingly set aside and the decree of the Court of first instance restored, with costs to the appellants in this and in the lower Appellate Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //