GEETA DEVI vs DAULATI DEVI - 2003 Supreme(SC) 39

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003 Supreme(SC) 39

GEETA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
DAULATI DEVI – Respondent

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 co