1. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

2. The present appeal is by the plaintiffs. The suit was for a declaration that a compromise decree dated 19-9-1991 in the civil suit in OS 318/1987, was not binding on the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiffs claimed partition and separate possession of a 5/6th share of the suit schedule B property - that had fallen to the share of defendant no.1 in the final decree proceedings in FDP 8/1987 and for other incidental reliefs.

3. The background to the suit is as follows:-

The plaintiff no.1 was the wife of Defendant no.1, Subbanna; plaintiffs no.2 and 3 were the sons of Subbanna; defendants no.2 and 3 were the brothers of Subbanna and defendants 4 to 7 were his sisters.

Subbanna and his brothers, defendants 2 and 3, were the sons of one Muniyappa and they constituted a Hindu Joint family. Muniyappa, the kartha, died in the year 1952. He left behind him his widow, his three sons and four daughters. The daughters were married and were residing in their respective matrimonial homes. Subanna, had filed a suit for partition against his mother and his brothers, defendants - 2 and 3, in OS 49/1973. The same was decreed. The same was challenged in appeal by the defendants therein. That appeal, in RA 29/1975, was dismissed. In the final decree proceedings that followed, Subbanna and his brothers, i.e., the defendants 2 and 3 in the present suit, had entered into a compromise and a compromise decree was passed, in FDP 8/1987. Thereafter, a suit came to be filed by a married sister of Subbanna, Defendant no.7 in the present suit, had filed suit against Defendants 1 to 3 herein, for partition, in OS 318/1987. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Subbanna, the husband of plaintiff no.1 actively colluded with defendant no.7 and the other defendants in the said suit and entered into a compromise, thereby frittering away the rightful share of the suit property to which the plaintiffs were entitled. In that, by virtue of the compromise decree entered into in suit OS 318/1987, the share of the suit properties allotted to the first defendant in FDP 8/1987 was varied and the female relatives, who were not entitled to any share therein, had been illegally conferred shares. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 hence claimed 1/3rd share each along with defendant no.1 of the property that was originally allotted to him.

4. Defendant no.1, 3 and 4 to 7, had filed their written statements and contested the suit. Defendant no.8, a purchaser of one of the items of the suit property had impleaded herself as a party to the suit. She was said to have purchased item no. 6 of the suit schedule from the plaintiffs and defendant no.1. The plaintiffs had subsequently deleted item no.6 from the suit schedule.

5. It was the case of the defendant no.1 that he along with the plaintiffs and others did not constitute a Joint Hindu family. He claimed to have separated himself from his father and brothers earlier on and had filed a suit for partition in OS 49/1973, which was decreed. He had admitted the subsequent events but denied that there were any irregularities. The settlement arrived at in OS 318 /1987 was said to be with the full knowledge of the plaintiffs. It was claimed that he had received a substantial sum of Rs.1,40,000/-, which in turn, had been given to the plaintiffs and that they had purchased agricultural lands at Kuruburahalli with the said amount in the name of the first plaintiff. It was asserted that there was no cause of action for the suit. However, Defendant no.1, Subbanna, died during the pendency of this appeal, in the year 2004.

6. Defendant no.3 in turn denied the plaint allegations and supported the compromise decree under challenge.

7. Defendants 4 to 7, asserted that they had been deprived of their legitimate share in the earlier compromise and defendant no.1 had only acknowledged this irregularity in willfully entering into the subsequent compromi