GOBARDHANDAS DAMJI Vs. RAMNIKLAL DEVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 arises out of an order of the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, passed in Title Suit No. 13 of 1950 postponing the consideration of the compromise petition till the final hearing of the suit.

(2.) In order to understand the true position of the case, it is necessary to give a short genealogy: <FRM> GHELABHAI PARMAR | ________________________________ | | | Devji= Damji= Lakhamsi= | Widow Rudi Bai | Widow (Deft.1) | (Deft. 5) | Lalibai | wife Saker Bai | | (Deft. 3) | (Pltf. 4) | | | | | | Ramniklal, Minor Gobardhan Das | (Deft. 4) (Deft. 2) | | | _____________________________ | | | Morarji Gangji, Minor Amritlal, Minor (Pltf. 1) (Pltf. 2) (Pltf.3) </FRM>

(3.) The plaintiffs, namely the three sons and the wife of Lakhamsi, brought a suit for partition of their joint property against their co-sharers, namely, Lakhamsi, defendant No. 1, Gobardhan Das and Lali Bai the son and the widow of Damji, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and Ramniklal and Rudi Bai, the son and the widow of Devji, defendants Nos. 4 and 5. Defendant No 6 was a stranger to the family and was made a party because certain property alleged to be of the joint family stood in his name. On 21-12-1950, the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application in the court compromising the suit. On the 23-12-1950, a petition was filed on behalf of plaintiff No. 4 as mother and guardian of the minor plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 for permission to compromise the dispute as the terms thereof were favourable to the interest of the minors. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 objected to the recording of the compromise and they filed an application on 3-1-1951, for being transposed to the category of the plaintiffs and to be allowed to carry on the suit in that capacity. The Court below allowed defendant Nos. 4 and 5 to be transposed to the category of the plaintiffs and permitted them to proceed with the suit. With respect, to the compromise petition, however, it passed an order that it should be kept on the record and final order thereon would be passed at the time of the judgment in the suit. Against that order defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have come up in appeal to this Court.