SARADA DEI Vs. KHIROD KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appeals and the revision arise out of interlocutory proceedings in Title Suit No. 328 of 1978 pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack.

(2.) The suit has been filed by Sarada Dei and her mother Kholia Dei, since deceased, for declaration of their title in respect of the property described in Schedules A to A/4, for invalidating the transfers effected by Krushna Chandra Behera, defendant No. 16 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 15, for confirmation of joint possession with defendants Nos. 16 to 24 or alternatively for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the alienees defendants 1 to 15 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and defendants 16 to 20 etc. Defendants 25 to 29 as pendente lite purchasers have subsequently been added as defendants.

(3.) The burden of the story of the plaintiffs appears to be that the compromise effected in Title Suit No. 26 of 1972 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, is not legal, valid and binding, It is stated in the plaint that the compromise petition was prepared by defendant No. 16, the son of deceased plaintiff No. 1 and brother of plaintiff No. 2, and the younger brothers and the plaintiffs were compelled to sign the document and admit the compromise and the compromise was not equitable. The terms of the compromise were not explained to the plaintiffs and without understanding the terms, the same was executed. In gist, the allegation is one of absence of due execution. They have alleged that defendant No. 16 virtually got the entire property and contrary to the terms contained in the compromise have been alienating the property.