ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. A SUIT HAD BEEN FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AGAINST THE APPELLANTS, INTER ALIA, FOR A DECLARATION THAT APPELLANTS 1-5 HAD NO RIGHT TO SELL THE LAND AND HOUSE DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE I OF THE COMPROMISE DECREE AS INDICATED IN RED

G IN PLANS 1 AND 2 ATTACHED TO THE COMPROMISE DECREE AND DETAILED IN SCHEDULE II TO THE PLAINT, EITHER TO APPELLANTS 7-9 OR ANY OTHER STRANGER EXCEPT TO THE RESPONDENTS. A DECLARATION WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT RESPONDENTS 1-5 COULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE USE OF ANY COMMON PASSAGE AND/OR COULD THE SAME BE SOLD BY RESPONDENTS 1-5 TO ANY STRANGER PURCHASER. THE RESPONDENTS ALSO CLAIMED PROTECTION IN RESPECT OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED PASSAGE BY THE RESPONDENTS AS WELL AS THE RECONVEYANCE OF THE SUIT PREMISES BY RESPONDENTS 7-9.

3. THE PROPERTY INITIALLY BELONGED TO A JOINT FAMILY OF WHICH THE PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST OF THE RESPONDENTS AND RESPONDENTS 1-5 WERE CO-SHARERS. THE PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF THE RESPONDENTS WAS ONE CHANDRA KISHORE AND THE PREDECESSOR OF PETITIONERS 1-5 WAS HARDEO NARAYAN. THE DECREE REFERRED TO IN THE PLAINT WAS A COMPROMISE DECREE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN CHANDRA KISHORE AND HARDEO NARAYAN IN 1980 DIVIDING THE JOINT PRO