MOST TILYA DEVI Vs. CHANDRAMA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 21.6.96 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Siwan, in Misc. Case No. 16/92 by which the Court below has corrected the decree passed earlier on compromise between the parties.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows ; Opposite Party No, 6, Bashist Singh, as plaintiff filed partition suit No. 1 of 1989 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Siwan, claiming 1/3 share in the suit property and it was also averred that other 1/3 belongs to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 who were opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 in this revision petition and the balance of 1/3 to defendant Nos. 7 to 11 who were petitioners in this revision petition. While the suit was pending then at the instance of village elderly persons as Panchas a compromise was arrived at between the parties and a joint compromise petition was filed on 2.1.1990. In the compromise petition, three schedules of properties were annexed. Schedule-I was allotted to opposite party No. 6 i.e. plaintiff, Schedule-II was allotted to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and defendant Nos. 7 to 11 were given Schedule-III. The compromise petition was accepted by the Court and on the basis of the compromise petition a decree was passed showing hte compromise petition to be a part of the decree. According to the petitioners, as per compromise in plot No. 1862; khata No. 287, in khata 10 dhoors was allotted to each of the three parties and the western most corner plot was allotted to the petitioners. But after the decree was passed in the year 1990 the petitioners constructed house and started business thereon as it was a road side plot. On 16.11.92. the petitioners filed the petition under Order XXIII. Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that although the compromise was arrived at to give the western plot to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 but in the certified copy, which was obtained afterwards, of the decree it could be found that after making interpolations in the decree regarding the boundaries the western plot was given to defendant Nos. 7 to 11 although the same was allotted to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and three interpolations, according to the petitioners, were made after the decree was passed behind the back of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 doing forgery on the records and as such, prayer was made either for correction of the decree by setting aside the interpolation or making the boundaries as it was in the original compromise petition to set aside the whole of the compromise decree and proceed with trial of the suit afresh. Objections were filed by the petitioners i.e. defendant Nos. 7 to 11. The plaintiff, who is opposite party No. 6, had filed petition supporting the case of the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases.

(3.) The petitioners' case was that the western most plot was never given to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 as it was a roadside plot and the allotment was made in respect of the plot in question by partitioning the same from north to south and not from east to west. But according to defendant No. 1 to 6, the partition was made in the plot in question not from north to south but not from east to west. Only after by the-go of the day when the plot became valuable one and when it was by the side of the road, interpolation was made by the contesting petitioners in the records by changing the boundaries. On consideration of the evidence on record and also on perusal of the compromise petition itself, learned Court below came to the finding, that the original compromise petition was changed afterwards by making interpolations and as such, he ordered for setting aside those interpolations and restoring the original boundaries mentioned in the compromise petition. Thus, in the Misc. Case No. 16 of 1992. which was registered on the petition filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 6. correction was made in respect of the decree in question by the impugned order. Thereafter, the said impugned order was challenged in this revision petition.