OM PRAKASH SAHU Vs. SARJU PD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J.K. Verma, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Harish Kumar, the learned counsel for the sole respondent and Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, the learned counsel for the applicants, who have prayed to be added as intervener-respondents in this appeal. This appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree of reversal by the appellate court below whereby the appeal has been allowed setting aside the dismissal of the suit. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for the reliefs seeking partition the half share in the suit property and also for declaration of the gift deeds dated 5.4.1991 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant nos. 2 to 4 for the suit land as nullity, forged, fabricated, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff.

(2.) A compromise petition (I.A. No. 666 of 2013) has been filed by the parties to the appeal stating therein that they have amicably resolved their dispute and have agreed for disposal of appeal in terms of the compromise enumerated in the compromise petition. In the compromise petition, the plaintiff-respondent has admitted the fact of previous partition of the family property by metes and bounds and has unconditionally withdrawn his assail to the deeds of gift dated 5.4.1991 and recognized donee-defendant nos. 2 to 4 as owners in possession of the gifted properties.

(3.) Thereafter, the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 873 of 2013) has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. on behalf of Kumari Bhushan Sharma praying for her addition as respondent no. 2 in the present appeal on the ground that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff-respondent sold 5 decimals of land of old plot no. 2344 by executing a registered sale deed dated 2.7.2004 in her favour. It has been further stated in the interlocutory application that the purchased 5 decimals of land of old plot no. 2344 is also the suit land and name of the intervener-purchaser has been mutated in the Anchal Office and she has been paying rent and getting rent receipts. It has been also averred that the plaintiff-respondent has collusively made the compromise with the appellants and therefore her addition as party of this appeal is desirable to protect her interest.