PRATIMA SINHA Vs. SHASHI KUMAR NARAIN SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) A suit had been filed by the respondents against the appellants, inter alia, for a declaration that Appellants 1-5 had no right to sell the land and house described in Schedule I of the compromise decree as indicated in red in Plans 1 and 2 attached to the compromise decree and detailed in Schedule II to the plaint, either to Appellants 7-9 or any other stranger except to the respondents. A declaration was also claimed that Respondents 1-5 could not interfere with the use of any common passage and/or could the same be sold by Respondents 1-5 to any stranger purchaser. The respondents also claimed protection in respect of the newly constructed passage by the respondents as well as the reconveyance of the suit premises by Respondents 7-9.

(3.) The property initially belonged to a joint family of which the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents and Respondents 1-5 were co-sharers. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was one Chandra Kishore and the predecessor of Petitioners 1-5 was Hardeo Narayan. The decree referred to in the plaint was a compromise decree entered into between Chandra Kishore and Hardeo Narayan in 1980 dividing the joint property amongst themselves.