ORDER

1. The short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is: whether a party to the compromise decree can file a petition under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 where parties to a partition suit entered into a compromise and a decree was passed in terms thereof.

2. It is not disputed that Ramadhikari Pandey was the original owner of the property in dispute. He had three sons Rupnarain Singh, Awadh Bihari and Brij Bihari, each having 1/3rd share. It is alleged that Rupnarain Singh transferred his share in favour of Brij Bihari. Subsequently Brij Bihari along with his sons mortgaged the property and as a result thereof they suffered a mortgage decree in the hand of Sohan Rai, mortgagee, and in execution case, half share of Brij Bihari and his sons in the house was sold by the court which was purchased by one Daulati Devi. Subsequently, Daulati Devi filed a partition suit against Brij Bihari and his sons including Krishna Kumar Pandey to carve out her share of 8 annas of disputed part of the house. It is accepted that in the said suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties and as a result thereof the compromise decree was passed. The terms of the said compromise are as under:

"(A) That the house mentioned in the plaint which is to be partitioned, north-south length is about 35 feet and east-west its length is about 42 feet.

North-south length has been partitioned and by doing so the present house has been divided into two equal parts meaning thereby 17.5 feet long north-south and 42 feet long east-west. Accordingly, two houses have come into existence, one towards north and the other towards south. One site plan is being filed along with this settlement and it shall form part of the compromise. On the site plan, house in the north has been marked with letter Ka and southern house is marked with Kha letter. As per the compromise the house towards south having north-south length of 17.5 feet and east-west width of 42 feet and which has been marked on the site plan with letter Kha has been given to the plaintiff applicant and northern portion marked on the site plan with letter Ka has gone to Defendants 1 to 5 applicants. Accordingly, the applicants came into possession of their• respective partitioned share of the house independently and on the partitioned share of the plaintiff her actual possession was agreed upon and defendant applicants have no concern left with same. It is clarified that in the southern portion of the present house there is one shop which is under the tenancy of Defendant 6 Shri Lalan Prasad Gupta at monthly rent of Rs 80 and presently he is running a medical shop in it in the name of Reliable Forma. This shop has particularly gone to the share of the plaintiff meaning thereby that the share marked in the site plan with letter Kha. The appellant-Defendants 1 to 5 have now no concern with this shop and from this date the plaintiff shall have full right and entitlement to receive rent from Defendant 6.

(B) That as per the compromise, it is further agreed that in the middle of this house, where Ka and Kha portions join, towards west there shall be a passage, both parties shall have access to their respective Partitioned share of the house and at the same passage stairs shall be constructed for going upstairs. This passage has been marked on the site plan with letter Ka.

(C) That through the compromise, it is further agreed that the plaintiff applicant, whenever she likes, can construct a partition wall for separating the two partitioned portions marked on the site plan with letter Ka and letter Kha and shall construct the passage mentioned in para B of the present application. Defendants to 5 applicants shall have no objection to this and in case they do so the same shall be illegal and without any effect before the Court. The expenses incurred in this shall be shared equally by the parties.

(D) That the cost of the suit shall be shared equally by the parties. Under the circumstance