R. GANGADHARAN NAIR Vs. PADMANABHAN M. N.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff came up with this appeal aggrieved by the concurrent finding rendered by the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for declaration of prescriptive right of easement over F schedule property. Plaint A and B schedule are the registered holding of plaintiff. Plaint schedule A to D actually belonged to the family of plaintiff and in the year 1981 under a partition A schedule was allotted to the share of plaintiff. B schedule was allotted to the brother of plaintiffs from whom it was purchased by the plaintiff. C schedule was allotted to one of his sisters from whom first defendant purchased the same. D schedule was allotted to another brother. E schedule is the entire road lying adjoining to some of the properties. F schedule forms part of E schedule over which the plaintiff claims prescriptive right of easement. The suit was filed for declaration of prescriptive right of easement and injunction. Both the courts below rejected the claim of plaintiff by dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the plaintiff came up with this appeal.

(2.) It is admitted by the plaintiff that there was an earlier suit in O.S.No.388/1998 between the plaintiff and the defendants. That suit was filed with respect to the very same F schedule property claiming possessory right. It was subsequently ended in a compromise decree in Ext.A1. But in Ext.A1 compromise decree the first defendant herein who was the 5th defendant in the earlier suit is not a signatory. But a decree was passed by the trial court accepting compromise, that too without the juncture of 5th defendant therein presumably on the reason that he remained ex parte in the earlier suit.

(3.) The question came up for consideration is whether a compromise decree would bind on a party who remained ex parte and whether it will have the legal force of a decree of a civil court ? If not, what makes the difference ?