AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kulwant Sahay, J.—This is an appeal by the defendants appellants in the lower Appellate Court against an order of the Subordinate Judge refusing to record a compromise under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The appellants purchased certain lands belonging to a sanghat. The plaintiff-respondent, who claims to be the mahanth of the sanghat, brought a suit for setting aside the conveyance on the ground that the defendant No. 6 who executed the coaveyance was a mere pujari and had no right to execute it. The suit succeeded in the trial Court and the defendants have filed an appeal which is pending before the Subordinate Judge. They filed an application before the Subordinate Judge stating that there had been a compromise between the mahanth plaintiff and themselves whereby the mahanth agreed to transfer the land in dispute to the appellants on receipt of a sum of Rs. 700. The mahanth denies the correctness of this allegation and says that lie had never compromised the suit.
The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the agreement, even if it has been arrived at, between the parties is not a lawful agreement which can be recorded in law.
In my opinion he is right. The mahanth has no absolute right over the properties of the sanghat and cannot dispose of them. He is a mere trustee and he can transfer the properties belonging to the mutt only for legal and justifying necessities of the mutt. He says that there is no necessity to transfer this property and the agreement alleged by the appellants, even if correct, is not a lawful agreement which can be enforced. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge is, therefore, correct.
The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs. The original appeal will now proceed.
Macpherson, J.
I agree.