Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section: 23

Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23-Document executed to eject, that criminal proceeding between parties has been com pounded-Such document itself not furnishing cause for settlement of criminal proceeding-Not hit by provision of S. 23.   JUDGMENT   This appeal has been preferred by defendant under the following circumstances:   Plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of the price of half of the produce in respect of suit-lands with regard to which a barga settlement was given to the defendant. Plaintiff has founded his title on a settlement taken from the original landlord of the said suit-lands, which were recorded in K' the name of the defendant in the C. S. Khatian. His case is that M the landlord auction-purchased suit-lands and took possession thereof. The sale certificate has been marked in the suit as Exh. 2. Plaintiff claims that he has taken settlement from the said landlord by a patta, which has been marked Exh. 1. This is the genesis of plaintiff's title. His main contention is, that defendant has taken settlement of suit-land as a bargadar for an annual payment of half the produce of the land.   The defence is a traverse of plaintiff's case. It has been contended on behalf of defendant that he was tenant in respect of suit-lands as corroborated by the C. S. records. With regard to plaintiff's possession of the suit-lands and settlement taken thereof by defendant as bargadar, there is a complete, denial by defendant.   It should be borne in mind that the C. S. Khatian was prepared about thirty-five years ago.   A number of issues were framed, at the trial of the suit by the learned Munsif who, on a full consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, held that suit-lands were auction-purchased by the landlord, as alleged by plaintiff. He also held that plaintiff took settlement of suit-land from the landlord subsequent to the said auction-purchase by the latter. He further held that plaintiff was in possession of suit-lands. The learned Munsif also found that defendant had taken barga settlement of the suit-lands from plaintiff and had, in fact, paid him (plaintiff) half the produce thereof for a…