SHRI NITYANAND CHAUDHARY Vs. BRAJ KISHORE CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have already heard the learned counsel, Mr. Madhav Roy on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel, Mr. Rajeev Roy on behalf of opposite parties.

(2.) The plaintiffs-petitioners and some of the defendants-opposite parties in the court below have filed this Civil Revision application against the impugned order dated 29.08.2003 passed by the learned Munsif, Sadar Purnea in Misc. Case No.42 of 1994 whereby the learned trial court set aside the compromise final decree passed in Title Suit No.167 of 1972.

(3.) It appears that Title Suit No.167 of 1972 was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners claiming for partition of suit property for separating his 1/24th share. The defendants appeared and then Patna High Court C.R. No.1696 of 2003 dt.18-07-2017 compromise application was filed on 30.04.1973 and ultimately the said suit was decreed in terms of compromise and final decree was passed on 14.08.1974. The defendant Nos.12 to 14 then filed Misc. Case No.42 of 1994 alleging that they had no knowledge about the suit or compromise decree, therefore, they inspected the record through their Advocate on 25.07.1994 after coming to know about the said case from the proceeding in Case No.428M of 1994. Thereafter, they came to know that when the natural guardian of the petitioners of miscellaneous case, who were minors, did not appear, the plaintiff of the suit was directed to get the guardian ad litem appointed by the court but the plaintiff did not take any step. All of a sudden on 30.04.1973, all the defendants appeared and joint compromise petition was filed forging the signature of the three defendants-petitioners in the vakalatnama. In fact, they never appeared nor engaged any Advocate nor they executed vakalatnama. They were admittedly minors and, therefore, they could not have signed the vakalatnama. No leave was obtained from the court on behalf of the petitioners for recording the compromise. In compromise, more area of the lands were partitioned and shown in the different schedules of the compromise application and some of the suit plots were not even touched in the compromise application. Many joint family properties were not even included in the plaint. The father of the petitioners and the opposite parties in collusion with each other got the suit disposed of on the basis of compromise.