HAKIMATUN NISA BIBI Vs. FAKIRUDDIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 9, wife of defendant No. 2 is the petitioner in this Civil Revision.

(2.) IN a suit for partition of properties of late Abdul Latif Khan among his widow and children except one daughter who had gone away to Pakistan with her husband, plaintiff filed an application for addition of some properties in the schedule of plaint for partition and for addition of petitioner as defendant No. 9 without any amendment to the description in the body of the plaint. Said prayer was allowed on 25 -9 -1984 on which day it was filed. Without calling upon the plaintiff to file amended plaint as required under Order 6, Rule 18, CPC, amendment was incorporated in the plaint by the office. On the same day, all the parties including the newly added defendant No. 9 filed an application for compromise of the suit. Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 and defendant No. 9 filed a Vakaiatnama with special power in favour of an Advocate. Trial Court passed the following order: '......The compromise petition is read over and explained to the plaintiff and defendants, 1 to 3, 8 and the adv. for defendants Nos. 4 to 7 and 9 who holds special power in open Court. They admitted the contents of the compromise petition to be correct. The compromise being lawful is accepted. Hence the suit is decreed finally in terms of the compromise petition. The petition of compromise do form part of the decree.'

(3.) ON 16 -5 -1986, defendant No. 9 filed an application stating that the building and 5 decimals of land over which it is constructed within Balasore town was purchased by his father -in -law in her name and name of his youngest son defendant No. 4 on account of love and affection towards them. Defendant No. 2, her husband was acing as the agent and collecting rent from the house by letting it out She is a Pardanashin lady knowing only to sign in Urdu and has no knowledge of litigation or management of property. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 influenced defendant No. 1 who is a simple man who believed his brother. Being influenced defendant No. 1 got some plain papers impressed with her thumb from the applicant stating that the same is necessary for addition of party in the litigation among brothers on 25 -9 -1984. when she did not get the monthly rent of the house for about six to seven months, she became suspicious and making enquiry through a neighbour came to know that the house had been got divided among the brothers. Therefore, she prayed that the compromise dated 25 -9 -1984 not being lawful and being fraudulent is to be cancelled. This was registered as a misc. case Under Section 151, CPC.