AWADHESH PRASAD SHARMA Vs. PRAHLAD PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal under Order 43 1-A (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 13.6.2006 and 1.7.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Katihar, in Title Partition Suit No. 10 of 1991 by which the suit has been decreed in terms of the compromise.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that two plaintiffs, namely, Prahlad Prasad Sharma and Rajesh Prasad Sharma from the plaintiffs' side and two defendants, namely, Jagdish Prasad Sharma and Jai Prakash Sharma from the defendants' side signed on the compromise petition which has been accepted by the court. Neither other defendants nor the plaintiff-appellant have made compromise in this case. As such, the compromise petition and the decree on the basis of compromise are not valid in view of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has also raised grievance that the valuable lands have been taken by the other plaintiffs and the defendants party to the compromise petition and the appellant has not been allotted the proper land equal to other plaintiffs and defendants who are parties to the compromise petition.

(3.) Mr. Awadhesh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 10, submits that the plaintiff-appellant has been lingering the suit since a long time and at last the compromise has been made. He has also been given the valuable land and thereafter the land has also been demarcated by a boundary wall. He has also submitted that Jai Prakash Sharma was authorized by other defendants who are not present to make signature in the compromise petition and thereafter he has put his signature and on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant Mr. R.K. Sinha, advocate, has put his signature. As such, it cannot be said that the plaintiff-appellant was not a party to the compromise petition.