SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH Vs. RAMSINGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Kali Singh of village Gadopur of (sic)rnea district left behind two sons, Ramlagan Singh, the defendant No. 1 and Shyam Nandan Singh, the defendant No. 2. Sunfulia Devi, the defendant No. 4 was wife of Ram Lagan Singh and Baikunth Singh, Ramprit Singh and (sic)andrakant Singh, the defendants 9, 10 and 11 were his sons, Binda Devi, (sic) defendant No. 12 and Rana Subhash Singh, the defendant No. 13 were respectively the widow and son of Ramudit Singh, pre deceased son of (sic)mlagan Singh, Ram Sumari Devi, the defendant No. 15 and Akhilesh Kumar (sic)ngh, the defendant No. 16 were respectively the widow and son of (sic)mshresth Singh, another pre deceased son of Ramlagan Singh. Bidyanand Singh, the defendant No. 2 was son of Shyam Nandan Singh, (sic) had six sons, namely, Abinash Singh, Arbind Singh, Ashok Singh, Ramnath Singh and Sheonath Singh, the defendants 4 to 8 and his sixth son (sic)msinger Singh was the plaintiff.

(2.) ACCORDING to plaintiff, in order to save the joint family properties from a mischief of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, as also Bihar Agricultural Income Tax Act, a collusive Partition Suit bearing No. 237 of 1955 was filed by the defendant No. 1, wherein defendants 2 and 3 and existing minor sons of (sic)dyanand Singh (defendant No 3) with wrong names were shown as plaintiffs (sic)d the said suit was disposed of on the basis of a fraudulent compromise (sic)tition filed therein even without any knowledge thereof to the other members of the family. A forged signature of the defendant No. 3, who was e of the plaintiffs in the said suit on the plaint as well as on the compromise (sic)tition were got inserted. The said compromise, if any, was collusive and (sic)udulant one and was never acted upon and the family continued as a joint ndu family.

(3.) THE plaintiff further pleaded that it was apparent that the schedules of a properties shown to have been allotted to the members of the family in the compromise petition were not according to their respective share. Neither any permission as required under Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure was sustained from the court permitting the guardian of the minor plaintiffs to sign e compromise petition on behalf of the minors, nor the court recorded its (sic)tisfaction that the said compromise was for the benefit of the minor parties such the said compromise was null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, me of the properties of the joint family were even not included in the said it. The plaintiff's interest was not affected on account of such a compromise cree.