DINA NATH PRASAD Vs. JAY PRAKASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsels for the petitioner as well as substituted respondent no. 5 set. Though other respondents have also appeared in the case, but there is no representation today on their behalf. However, considering the long pendency of the matter it has been taken up for disposal along with Civil Misc. No. 1825 of 2017.

(2.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 5/4/2016 passed by learned Sub Judge-I, Gopalganj in Title Suit No. 32 of 1946, whereby and whereunder the learned Sub Judge allowed the petition dtd. 3/3/2016 filed by defendant no. 9 under Sec. 152 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code')

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Title Suit No. 32 of 1946 was disposed of in terms of compromise vide order dtd. 24/2/1951 and a compromise decree was prepared. The compromise petition of the parties was made part of a decree, which was sealed and signed on 24/2/1951. It appears that on the basis of the compromise decree, parties to the suit came into respective possession of their land as allotted to them. However, Khata No. 78, Plot No. 632, Area 2 Katha 10 dhurs was allotted to the defendant no. 11, namely, Kaushal Kishore Narayan, who died unmarried and the said property along with other properties came in share of his two brothers, namely Prakash Prasad Singh, (defendant no. 12) and Ashok Prasad Singh, (defendant no. 14). But the respondent nos. 3 and 4 who are brother and sister-in-law of Kaushal Kishore Narayan executed a registered sale deed dtd. 16/3/2009 in favour of the petitioner and handed over the possession to the petitioner. Cousin of Plaintiff No. 2 of Title Suit No. 32 of 1946 filed Title Suit No. 169 of 1913 against the aforementioned sale deed on the ground that the vendors of the petitioner have no right to execute the sale deed. He claimed that he got the land by way of gift deed. While Title Suit No. 169 of 2013 was pending, original respondent no. 5/original defendant no. 9 filed a petition dtd. 3/3/2016, under Sec. 152 read with Sec. 151 of the Code praying therein to amend the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 32 of 1946 and strike out plot no. 632 from Schedule 5(E).The said petition was allowed vide order dtd. 5/4/2016 which is under challenge before this Court.