MOHD MURTHUZA ALL Vs. ZAREEN TAJ BEGIUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No. 1093/90 in O.S.No.288/90 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the application filed for setting aside the compromise decree in O.S.No.288/90.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner herein that O.S.No.288/90 was filed seeking partition of suit schedule properties which are matruka properties left by one Shiraji also known as Mirza Rafee Shirazi. The first respondent herein i.e., Smt. Zareen Taj Begum is only a tenant over the matruka properties left by Shiraji. In the said suit filed for partition, the first respondent herein was represented by her General Power of Attorney Mr.Ali Raza. Said Ali Raza engaged an Advocate Sri.K.Madhava Rao, and the matter was contested. Ultimately, the matter ended up in a compromise. It is stated that the first respondent through her General Power of Attorney entered into a compromise in O.S.No. 288/90 and accordingly a compromise decree was passed on 27- 7-90 allotting the respective shares to parties.

(3.) Notwithstanding the fact of compromise effected and a compromise decree which was passed on 27-7-90, the first respondent on fictitious grounds filed I.A.No. 1093/90 before the trial Court seeking to set aside the compromise decree passed in O.S.No. 288/90 dated 27-7-90 by contending that she had never authorised said Ali Raza to act on her behalf as General Power of Attorney. She further stated that her eldest daughter-in-law in collusion with said Ali Raza got documents forged and filed a suit and compromised with the parties. This application which was filed for setting aside the compromise decree was resisted by the petitioner herein by contending that there are no grounds in the application. Even otherwise, she is not entitled to seek setting aside of the compromise decree without recourse to filing an appeal either under Order 43 Rule 1A or under Section 96 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code. It is also contended that the application filed is under Section 151 C.P.C. and therefore, such an application is not maintainable.