( 1 ) THE appellants were the plaintiffs and respondents were defendants in O. S. No. 176/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gadag. For convenience we will refer to the parties by their ranks in the suit or by their names.

( 2 ) VIRUPAXGOUDA and Veerangouda (Defendants 1 and 2 in this suit) are brothers and are the sons of late Basangouda Patil and his wife Basavva. Plaintiffs- 1 to 4 are the children, and plaintiff No. 5 is the wife of Virupaxgouda, the first defendant. The third and fourth defendants are respectively the son and wife of Veerangouda, the second defendant.

( 3 ) BASANGOUDA, filed a suit against his two sons (Virupaxgouda and Veerangouda) and his wife (Basavva) in O. S. No. 60/1994 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gadag for partition and separate possession of his one-fourth share in the joint family properties. He alleged that there was no partition till then. During the pendency of the suit, Basangouda died. Basangouda s second son Veerangouda and Basangouda s widow - Basavva (defendants 2 and 3 in that suit) were transposed as plaintiffs 1a and 1b, and virupaxgouda continued as the sole defendant. Subsequently, basavva also died allegedly leaving a will bequeathing her properties to Somashekhargouda, son of Veerangonda, and accordingly somashekhargouda was impleaded as plaintiff 1b (1) as the L. R. of the deceased Basavva in that suit. A compromise petition was filed on 28. 5. 1999 in the said suit (O. S. No. 60/1994) by the plaintiffs in the suit (Veerangouda and his Somashekhargouda) on the one hand and the defendant in the suit (Virupaxgouda) on the other, dividing the suit properties. The said compromise proceeded on the basis that there was no earlier partition. A consent Decree was passed in terms of the said compromise on 31. 5. 1999.

( 4 ) THE Appellants herein filed O. S. No. 176/1999 on 13. 12. 1999 alleging that there was an oral partition in the year 1976 between basangouda, Virupaxgouda and Veerangouda and in the said partition, the plaint A schedule properties were allotted to virupaxgouda, plaint B schedule properties were allotted to veerangouda and plaint C schedule properties were allotted to the share of Basangouda; and that each of them was in possession and enjoyment of the respective properties allotted to them from 1976 onwards and they were also registered as the Khathedar of the respective properties allotted to them; in the Revenue records and Panchayat records. They contended that suppressing such partition, Basangouda had filed O. S. No. 60/1994 and the compromise entered therein between Veerangouda and Somashekhar Gouda on the one hand and Virupaxgouda on the other was unlawful and void as it was the result of coercion and undue influence. They therefore sought the following reliefs:-A. For cancellation of the Compromise Decree passed in o. S. No. 60/1994 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), gadag. B. For a Decree awarding 5/6th share in the plaint A and C schedule properties, to the plaintiffs and for partition and separate possession of their share in the said properties. C. For a direction to send the decree to the revenue authorities for effecting a partition of the lands and for appointment of a Commissioner to divide the house properties.

( 5 ) THE first defendant (Virupaxgouda) filed his written statement on 14. 8. 2000 supporting the plaintiffs and contended that he was forcibly made to enter into a compromise in O. S. No. 60/1994. Defendants-2 to 4 did not file any written statement but filed an application (I. A. 2) dated 7. 8. 2000 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with order 23 Rule 3a of CPC, for rejection of the plaint on three grounds : (I) that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file such a suit; (ii) that suit did not disclose any cause of action; and (iii) the suit was barred by Order 23 Rule 3a CPC.

( 6 ) THE Trial Court has allowed the said application (IA-2) and rejecting the plaint by order dated 8. 2. 2001. The Tri