SUDHAKAR Vs. RAGHUVENDRA NARAIN DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 25.8.1999. passed by Sri P.N. Rai. District Judge, Unnao in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1998. Raghuvendra Narain Dixit v. Smt. Surya Mukhi Devi, whereby compromise paper No. 22 Ka-1 entered into in between Sudhakar and Raghuvendra Narain Dixit on 21.8.1999 was rejected. The appeal has been filed by Sudhakar S/o Late Kripa Shanker.

(2.) It appears that an application was given by Raghuvendra Narain Dixit under Section 276 of the Act for issue of probate in respect of the estate of the testator Surya Mukhi Devi alias Suraj Mukhi wife of Badri Narain Dixit in respect of the property detailed in para 6 of the petition, alleging that Surya Mukhi died on 7.8.1998 and that the property detailed in para 6 of the petition was given to the alleged legatee by virtue of Will dated 14.7.1998. In this petition for issue of probate, Raghuvendra Narain Dixit was made opposite party, the Estate of Surya Mukhi Devi wife of Badri Narain Dixit. No other person was impleaded. One Sudhakar, present appellant filed objection dated 22.5.1999 disputing the Will and alleged that no probate could be granted.

(3.) 22 A-1 compromise was filed by these two persons, the present appellant and respondent No. 1. According to the terms of the deed, the property given in para 6 of the probate petition was given to the petitioner Raghuvendra Narain Dixit, in respect of the other property, viz., the property mentioned in para 4 Aa of petition which is a house situated in village Bara was to go to Sudhakar, present appellant. Similarly the other immovable property which was entered as bhumidhari land in revenue records detailed in para 3 of the compromise was also to go to Sudhakar, the present appellant. Similarly other immovable property mentioned in para 4 of the compromise was to go to Sudhakar. It was also agreed in para 5 that case pending in Revenue and other Courts would be withdrawn. In para 6, it was agreed that Sudhakar would pay an amount of Rs. fifty thousand to Raghuvendra Narain Dixit. It was also agreed that Suryamukhi alias Suraj Mukhi would have no claim to the amount or immovable property except as mentioned in para 6 Aa of the petition of probate. The learned District Judge found this compromise to be beyond the scope of the spirit of the probate and Will and against the wishes of the testator, contained in the Will dated 8.1.1998. Against the rejection of the compromise, the present appeal has been filed.