A.B.SURYA Vs. C.SATHYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant being aggrieved by the order of direction dtd. 7/2/2015 in FDP No.114/2008 by the X Addl. City, Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City CCH-26 to draw final decree, has preferred this appeal. Parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the FDP Court i.e. appellant was respondent and respondent was petitioner before the said Court for the purpose of convenience.

(2.) There was an illegal compromise entered by the petitioner with the present Appellant-defendant No.1 in OS No. 6908/2000 before the trial Court on 18/10/2001. According to the Appellant, the said compromise decree is the outcome of fraud, misrepresentation, and without the knowledge of the appellant. According to him, the present respondent in this appeal is the only son of the 3rd elder brother of the appellant. Already there was a partition in the year 1951 between the father of the Appellant and his three brothers. But, even then, the present Respondent in this appeal filed suit in OS No. 6908/2000 on the file of X Addl. City, Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, seeking partition in the schedule property so mentioned therein against the Appellant and five others who were totally different persons. The said suit was filed on 12/10/2000. It is alleged by the plaintiff that, in the said suit, he filed a written statement and contested the suit. But, however, the respondent, being the plaintiff in the said suit, hatched a cunning plan to get some portion of the property of this appellant by playing fraud on him on the guise of withdrawing the partition suit and asked the appellant to sign the papers by stating that he was going to withdraw the suit. He took the signature of the Appellant. It is alleged that, in good faith, by trusting the Respondent, he put his signature. He is an illiterate person unable to read and write English. By playing fraud upon the appellant, the said papers were presented before the trial Court fraudulently and got a compromise decree in his favor, falsely mentioning that the appellant agreed to give 1510 sq. ft. of super-built-up area in the first and second floors of the commercial complex 'CITADEL', which is described as item No. 1 of Schedule property in the said suit.

(3.) It is further stated that the respondent filed an execution petition in EP No. 673/2003 during 2003 before the City Civil Court and sought delivery of said 1510 sq. ft. The appellant was shocked to know that the respondent played fraud on him and got a compromise decree in his favor. The respondent filed a memo before the City Civil Court in the said suit on 18/10/2001 and prayed to dismiss the suit against defendant nos. 2 to 6. In the said memo, it is stated that the said defendant nos. 2 to 4 had no right or possession over the schedule properties. Though defendant no. 2, the father of the respondent, has no right and possession over the schedule properties mentioned in the said suit, the plaintiff got a compromise decree in his favor.