ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. No doubt this appeal arises from an interlocutory application, since it has an effect on the judicial proceedings that have become final; we think that at this stage, it would be appropriate to interfere with this matter and correct it.

3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order and judgment of the High Court of Karnataka made on 20.10.1995 in C.R.P. No. 420/95. Admittedly, the appellant had instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property in 1966 in Suit No. 88/66 which was dismissed on February 20, 1988. On appeal, after the remand by the High Court, Appeal No. 98/88 culminated in compromise. A compromise decree was passed on February 29, 1990 (sic.). Thereunder the appellant was given from the total extent of 3 acres, 39 guntas of land, towards his share and decree in that behalf was passed. Under the Panchnama drawn by the Tehsildar on July 22, 1993, the appellant was put in possession of 39 guntas of land as per the certified copies of the Panchnama filed in the trial Court as Item No. 17 of the documents filed in the present suit. The district Court also in the present pr