S. LINGARAJU Vs. SANNAPPA DEVANNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -plaintiff and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

(2.) The petitioner herein who is the plaintiff before the trial Court filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule item Nos. 1 to 10. He has also claimed mesne profits from the date of suit till date of partition and separate possession. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 filed written statement contesting the suit of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, compromise petition was moved by the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 and 7 to 9. The trial Court has not accepted the said compromise petition and ultimately, it was rejected by the trial Court by its order dated 31.3.2015, which order is challenged by the petitioner -plaintiff in this writ proceeding.

(3.) Looking to the plaint averments, the plaintiff himself has pleaded in para No. 3 of the plaint to the effect that the properties more fully described in the suit schedule below are ancestral joint family coparcenary properties. The plaintiff and the defendants are Hindus governed by Mitakshara Hindu Law. So far there was no partition by metes and bounds in respect of the schedule properties, on the other hand, they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. So this averment made by the plaintiff in the plaint goes to show that all the defendants are also having a share in the suit schedule property. When that is so, ultimately, it is for the trial Court to ascertain the share of each of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants in the said suit. The said compromise petition was not entered into by all the parties to the suit. It was only in between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 and 7 to 9. Therefore, the trial Court while considering the compromise petition has rightly observed that it is the duty of the Court to protect the interest of all the parties to the litigation and it was also observed that if the said compromise petition is allowed, then defendant Nos. 7 to 9 will get 1 acre each out of 6 acres in item No. 10 and it will prejudice the shares of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 6. Therefore, looking to the reasons adopted by the trial Court, it is also clear that the trial Court has considered the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff while considering the compromise petition. I have also perused the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff in case of MATHURA PRASAD PHOOL CHAND AND OTHERS VS. PARMANAND THAKUR DAS AND OTHERS reported in : AIR 1960 MP 161, wherein Their Lordships of Gwalior Bench, High Court of Madhya Pradesh held as under: