RAJENDRA MISHRA Vs. KAILASH PATI MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision petition has been filed against an order dated 20 -11 -1987 passed, in Title Suit No. 114 of 1966, by Sri. S. Nath, Subordinate Judge, Sasaram, wherein he has dismissed the petition dated 18 -11 -1987, filed under Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) In order to appreciate the full facts of the case, it is necessary to state few facts of the case. Since this case has got a chequered history therefore, in order to appreciate the same it may be stated that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 114 of 1966 for declaration of their title with respect to the disputed lands as detailed in Schedules A and B of the plaint and also for confirmation of possession over the same and in alternative a relief for recovery of possession was also sought for.

(3.) Earlier to the present title suit in Title Suit No. 45 of 1961 was filed by Kamlapati Mishra, Kalish Pati Mishra, KabiIashpati Mishra and Laxmi Pati Mishra in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sasaram against the defendants That suit appears to have been decreed and the defendants excluding Gouri Mishra and Smt. Maniraj Devi, filed an appeal in this Court which was numbered as First Appeal No. 372/65. While that appeal was pending in this Court the plaintiffs of title suit No. 45 of 1961 along with their children filed the present title suit No. 114/196. In that suit the principal -Defendants were the defendants to title suit No. 45/1966. While title suit No 114/66 was pending in the trial court, the first appeal No. 372/65was disposed of by this Court on the basis of a compromise catered into between the defendants and the appellants, except appellants Brajendra Mishra and Harendra Mishra, whose name were expunged on 22 -9 -1966 in the aforesaid first appeal and the plaintiffs Respondents, namely, plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4, who are the same as the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 in title suit No. 114 of 1966. By the aforesaid compromise petition which forms part of the decree passed by this Court in the aforesaid first appeal, agreements were arrived at between the parties to compromise not only with respect to, the properties in title suit No. 46/51, but also in respect of the properties which were the subject -matter of title suit No. 114/66. After setting out the compromise on which the appeal had been compromised the compromise petition run as follows: -