RAMAWATI DEVI Vs. MAHESHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 6-6-2001, passed by the Subordinate Judge IX, Siwan, in Misc. Case No. 4 of 1999, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, by which she has challenged the compromise entered between her and other opposite parties as unlawful.

(2.) The facts, which are not in dispute, are that opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit for partition against the defendant-opposite parties second set and the petitioner, who was defendant No. 3. Her mother was defendant No. 2, who died during the pendency of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the parties agreed to compromise the matter and, accordingly, a compromise petition was prepared and the same was signed by all the parties. The properties in Schedule 5 were allotted to the defendant-petitioner. The said compromise petition was moved on 28-8-1998 and, thereafter, the Court examined witnesses in support of the aforesaid compromise including the petitioner, who also put her signature on the compromise petition, on the basis of which a decree was passed on 7-12-1998.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that she admitted that the compromise was entered into between the parties and Schedule 5 was allotted to her and on the basis of which a compromise decree was passed. Later on 9-5-1999, she came to know that the properties, which were included in Schedule 5 allotted to her in the compromise, were not in that schedule and the plaintiff and other defendants committed a fraud by changing the pages of the compromise petition. She being an illiterate lady could not know the game adopted by the plaintiff and other defendants. When she came to know about their mischievous and fraudulent act, she got the record inspected through an Advocate and, thereafter, filed a petition to annul the compromise on the ground that the same was unlawful. She challenged the compromise on the ground that she had not appointed any Advocate to represent the case on her behalf. She only put her signature on the compromise petition without reading the contents. Her signature has been identified by some other Advocate and there is no signature on each of the compromise petition either of her or of her Advocate. The alleged properties, which were allotted to her, were changed in the compromise decree.