SANYASI JENA Vs. MINA JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Title Suit No. 30 of 1978 was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak, by opposite party No, 6 for partition. It was alleged in paragraph 6 of the plaint that in the property in suit, the plaintiff had 1/4 interest, the defendants 1 to 3 had 1/4, defendants 4 to 8 had 1/4 and defendants 9 to 12 had 1/4 interest. The plaintiff sought for a declaration of the shares of the different branches and for allotment of specific property. The suit was filed on 20-3-1978. On the next day i. e. on 21-4-78(?) the defendants 1, 3, 9, 10 and 12 entered appearance. As despite service of notice defendants 4 to 8 and 11 did not appear, they were set ex parte. The case was adjourned to 11-5-1978 for filing of written statement by defendants 1 to 3, 9, 10 and 12. On 11-51978 the said defendants sought further adjournment and the case was adjourned to 4-7-1978. On that day a petition of compromise entered into by the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3, 9, 10 and 12 was filed. Under the compromise specific properties were allotted to the parties representing the various branches including defendants 4 to 8 and 11. The compromise was both a preliminary and final decree. Defendants 4 to 8 and 11 had not joined the compromise. But the parties who had entered the compromise, namely the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, 9, 10 and 12 stipulated that the suit be decreed ex parte against the non-appearing defendants 4 to 8 and 13 in terms of the compromise. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, 9, 10 and 12 thereby sought to unilaterally bind the non-appearing defendants to the terms of the compromise.

(2.) The suit was one for partition. As per the averments in the plaint and the compromise petition defendants 4 to 8 and 11 are co-sharers and necessary parties to the suit for partition. Without them the suit for partition would not be maintainable and without their joining the compromise, a partition suit generally cannot be compromised I use the word "generally" keeping in mind certain observations and illustrations given by Venkatasubba Rao, J. in C. Thiruvengada Mudalier v. Thengayelu Mudalier, AIR 1928 Mad 594. It is settled law that a compromise of partition suit would be ineffectual (generally) unless all the necessary parties to the action having interest in the property and likely to be prejudicially affected by the compromise join in it.

(3.) It is indisputable that without defendants 4 to 8 and 11 there cannot be legal and valid compromise of the suit for partition. It is unthinkable how without their consent or agreement the rest of the parties could determine their shares or make allotment of property. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, could not see through the game. He accepted the compromise as having been lawfully entered into and valid and recorded the same. He directed as under.:--