AMARENDRA KUMAR Vs. ANJALI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal is directed against the Judgment/ Order dated 22.03.1996 recording compromise and the final decree signed on 06.04.1996 by Sri Mahendra Narayan Singh, the leaned Subordinate Judge-I, Patna in Title Partition Suit No.37 of 1994.

(2.) IT appears that originally the defendant No.1, Devnandan Singh, had filed this Appeal. On his death, the present appellant, Amrendra Kumar, who was respondent No.1 in this First Appeal, was transposed as sole appellant. This Amrendra Kumar is son of original appellant Devnandan Singh. The present appellant Sri Amrendra Kumar filed aforesaid partition suit claiming 1/5th share in Schedule I and II properties mentioned in the plaint. In the said suit, the defendant No.1 was father of the plaintiff, i.e., Sri Devnandan Sinha. The said Devnandan Sinha defendant No.1 had two wives, namely, Smt. Anjali Devi and Smt. Chandrakanta Sinha who were defendant-respondent No.2 and 3. The 3 sons from the second wife Chndra Kanta Sinha are the plaintiff-appellant Amrendra Kumar and defendant-respondent No.4 and 5, namely, Dr. Nirmal Kumar and Devendra Kumar respectively.

(3.) THE learned counsel, Mr. R.K.P. Singh appearing on behalf of the respondent at the very outset submitted that the Appeal itself is not maintainable as the Appeal is directed against a compromise decree, therefore, the Appeal is barred under Section 96 (3) C.P.C. THE learned counsel further submitted that originally the defendant No.1 has filed the Appeal and the present appellant, Amrendra Kumar who was plaintiff in the Court below did not challenged the compromise decree and, therefore, at his instance, the Appeal is not maintainable. THE learned counsel further submitted that in fact the application was a compromise application because it was signed by the parties and their Advocates. In the said compromise application, the terms and conditions were mentioned but the defendant and plaintiff were objecting to it on untenable ground and, therefore, the Court had the jurisdiction to see that the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise application are fulfilled or not and in furtherance thereof, the learned Court below passed the orders directing the Nazir to issue delivery of possession. According to the learned counsel, this was within the jurisdiction of the Court and after hearing the parties and considering the objections raised by the defendant No.1 and plaintiff, the learned Court below overruled the objection and recorded the compromise. THErefore, there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment and Order. As such the First Appeal is liable to be dismissed.