CHANDER KHAN Vs. SULEMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiffs have filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgments and decree passed by both the courts below vide which the suit of the plaintiff-appellants for declaration for setting aside the compromise judgments and decree dated 21.2.1969 (Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 respectively) has been dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Hussaini, Wd/o Noor Mohammad was owner in possession of the land-in-dispute measuring 267 kanals 3 marlas. She was having only one daughter namely Smt. Sehmati who was having four sons. The husband of Smt. Sehmati was 'Khanadamad' and was living in the in-laws house with Smt. Hussaini. On 20.6.1964, Smt. Hussaini executed a registered gift deed in favour of her grandsons (sons of Smt. Sehmati). The said gift deed was challenged by the collaterals (defendants No. 1 to 4 herein), of the husband of Smt. Hussaini in Civil Suit No. 102 of 1966. The said suit was defended by Smt. Sehmati as guardian ad litem of her minor sons in whose favour the aforesaid gift deed was executed. The claim of the defendants 1 to 4 was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.1968. Against that decree, the defendants preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the said appeal, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. Since one of the party was consisting of minors, a permission was sought by the guardian for entering into the compromise under Order 32 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The Addl. District Judge after applying his mind granted the permission to compromise the case after recording the statement of the uncle of the minors, the mother of the minors as well as of Smt. Hussaini the alienor. According to that compromise half of the suit property was decreed in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 4.

(3.) DEFENDANTS No. 1 to 4 contested the aforesaid suit. It was contended that the previous suit was compromised between the parties after completing all legal formalities. The compromise was very much in the interest and for the benefit of the minors and the same was entered into after obtaining requisite permission from the Court. The allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were controverted. It was further pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by the principle of res judicata.