HAWA UMMAL Vs. MOHAMMED YOUSUFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the rejection of unfiled I.A.No.-/96 in I.A.No. 145 of 1985 in O.S.No.12 of 1984 on the file of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows:-2.1. The Plaintiff has filed the Suit in O.S.No.12 of 1984 on the file of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal, for partition of her 3/4th share. Preliminary decree was passed on 28.2.1988. The Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.145 of 1985 for passing a final decree in terms of the Preliminary Decree. A compromise memo was filed and decree was passed pursuant to the compromise memo. As per the compromise memo, instead of 7'feet entitled by the Defendant, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant endorsed that the Defendant was entitled to 9 feet width in the total length, for which a sum of Rs.5000/- was assured to be paid as compensation. Rs.3000/- was stated to be paid then and thereby leaving a balance amount of Rs.2000/- which was agreed to be paid within sixty days and if not, with 12% interest.2. 2. Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff challenges the Compromise Decree contending that she did not consent to give 1'feet in the suit property nor agreed to receive any compensation as stipulated in the compromise memo and that the compromise is a fraud played upon the Court. According to her, only when the Commissioner came to divide the property, she learnt that only 21 feet would be allotted to her and not 22'feet in total and therefore, filed the application to set aside the compromise decree dated 2.5.1988. That application was rejected, which is impugned in this Revision Petition.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel on either side.