KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI Vs. PADMANABHAN NAMBOODIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs 2, 5, 6,7 and 9 in a suit for partition are the appellants.

(2.) The suit was for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 17 shares and allotment of 9 shares to the plaintiffs. The 3rd defendant Narayanan Namboodiri is alleged to have relinquished his share in favour of the other members of the illom and that was the reason why division of the property into 17 shares were sought even though there were 18 members in the illom. Pending the suit the counsel appearing for the parties effected a compromise by making an endorsement on the plaint itself agreeing to divide the property into 18 shares and allotment of one share each to the parties excepting defendants 3 and 4. No share was allotted to the third defendant, 4th defendant was allotted two shares. One of the properties scheduled in the plaint was left out of partition saying that it exclusively belonged to the 5th defendant.

(3.) The compromise decree is challenged by the appellants mainly on the ground that the decree and compromise violates O.23 R.3 of the CPC. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in Sukumaran v. Union of India ( 1991 (1) KLT 292 ). Considering the scope of the amended provisions of O.23 R.3 and the insertion of the words "in writing and signed by the parties" by Amendment Act 104 of 1976 the learned Judge held that: