PRADIP KUMAR DAS Vs. ABANTI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A pointt regarding maintainabilitty of the appeal has been raised on the ground that the appeal is incompetent in view of the bar imposed under Section 96 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'Code'). The learned counsel for parties were heard at length on the question.

(2.) The factual position is almost undisputed, and noted in brief is as follows :A suit was filed by the appellant as plaintiff for partition by metes and bounds. Same was numbered as O. S. No. 29 of 1990, Class I in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Balasore, (as the Court was designated then). Respondents 1 and 2 are mother and brother of the appellant respectively, who were defendants in the suit. On 26-3-1990 a petition for compromise was filed which was read over and explained to the parties and was admitted. The learned subordinate Judge recorded the compromise, and decreed the suit finally in terms of the compromise petition being of the view that the petition for compromise was lawfully recorded. The decree was finally drawn on 28-3-1995.

(3.) In this appeal challenge is made to the compromise on the ground that valuable properties were allotted to the share of defendants. The appellant acted in good faith while entering into the compromise, and there has been unequal partition and improper allotment of share. It is also alleged that the compromise is bad due to improper valuation and non-allotment of legitimate share.