MANDRAWATI Vs. MARUTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for both sides. The Revision Application has been admitted and finally heard with consent of learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) The Applicant is original Plaintiff. Respondents are legal heirs of original Defendant No.1 Maruti. Respondent No.1 C is Legal Heir of Defendant No.1 and also original Defendant No.2. I will refer to the Applicant as Plaintiff and Respondent No.1 C as Defendant.

(3.) The Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.151 of 2007 for partition against her brother Defendant Maruti and his son Defendant No.2 Datta. According to the Applicant Plaintiff, Defendants prepared a compromise deed and compelled the Plaintiff for her signature on the compromise and the same was filed in the trial Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur at Exhibit 16 on 2nd January, 2008. She did not give free consent to the said compromise. The same was obtained by force. Defendants succeeded in getting decree passed by the trial Court on 7th February, 2008. The same is illegal and improper. Plaintiff had filed Civil Revision Application No.75 of 2008 in the High Court to quash the said order recording compromise on dated 7th February, 2008.