SYED YASEEN Vs. RESHMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this regular second appeal, the appellant is calling in question the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2010 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in R.A. No. 51/2007 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the appellant - respondent No. 1 herein and declaring that the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1993 passed in O.S. No. 397/1992 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC., Hoskote, was not binding on the plaintiff. Appellant was the 1st defendant before the Trial Court. The 1st respondent Smt. Reshma wife of Jakir Khan was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 131/ 1999, out of which the present second appeal arises. She had filed the suit seeking to set aside and cancel the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1993 passed in O.S. No. 397/1992. The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 397/1992 was based on a compromise reached between the appellant who was the plaintiff in the said suit and respondents 1 & 2 herein who were the defendants 1 & 2 in the said suit. The said suit was one filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05.04.1990 executed by late Sabjan - father of respondent No. 1 and the husband of respondent No. 2.

(2.) Plaintiff in the said suit having purchased the property under an agreement from the father of the 1st defendant sought for specific performance of the agreement by arraying respondent No. 1 herein as defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein - mother of respondent No. 1 as defendant No. 2 and the grandparents of the minor - respondent No. 1 herein as defendants 3 & 4. The said suit was contested by the 2nd defendant. The grandparents of respondent No. 1 conceded for passing a decree by filing a separate written statement. The 2nd respondent - 2nd defendant was appointed as guardian of the minor. In that capacity, she represented the minor and a compromise was entered into. Based on the compromise, a compromise decree came to be passed in O.S. No. 397/1992 on 19.01.1993 decreeing the suit filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05.04.1990.

(3.) Challenging the said decree, the present suit was instituted in O.S. No. 131/1999 by the 1st respondent. She contended that the compromise decree was the result of collusion between the parties thereto arrived with a view to knock of the share of respondent No. 1. The 1st respondent further contended that her mother 2nd defendant - respondent No. 2 herein had no right or authority to represent her as guardian in as much as Mohammedan Law did not recognize the mother of a minor as her legal guardian in respect of immovable property. It was also contended that the registered Sale Deed sought to be executed in favour of the purchaser through the Court in the execution proceedings was also illegal.