IMPORTANT POINT
A minor can seek partition, but cannot challenge a compromise decree if not a party to it; Lok Adalat awards are binding unless proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of dismissal of suit filed in O.S.No.4/2009 dated 12.09.2014 and an appeal filed in R.A.No.82/2014 dated 12.10.2017.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration, partition and possession, it is contended that late Nagappa is the father of the defendant Nos.1 to 3. The defendant No.4 is the father of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed suit in O.S.No.91/2006 for partition and separate possession of their shares. The defendant No.4 who is the father of the plaintiff never took interest in managing the family properties and he always yielded to the words of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and addicted to all sort of bad habits. By taking advantage of weakness of defendant No.4, defendant Nos.1 to 3 managed to settle the suit by referring the matter to lok-adalath. The matter was compromised on 16.06.2007 and preliminary decree was passed on 29.06.2007 and final decree was drawn on stamp paper on 09.06.2008.

4. It is contended in the plaint that all these decrees were passed behind the back of the plaintiff by playing fraud and undue influence. There was already partition as per M.R.No.5/1986-87 between defendant No.4 and his cousins. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 got married long back and residing in their matrimonial houses. They have lost their right in the schedule properties. The plaintiff being the only son of defendant No.4 has got equal half rights and interest over the suit schedule properties. It is also his contention that his mother has been managing the suit schedule properties to safeguard the interest of plaintiff. It is also an allegation that in the compromise decree most fertile lands were taken to the share of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and compromise was not fair. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have taken unfair advantage by getting consent of defendant No.4 by playing fraud, undue influence. The plaintiff came to know regarding compromise decree when the taluk surveyor visited the suit schedule properties for demarcation of suit schedule properties and immediately he lodged the complaint to the police and then he was able to get the zerox copy of the compromise petition. It is contended that immediately he has got issued the legal notice to the defendants. Hence, contend that compromise is not binding on the plaintiff and sought for the relief of declaration, partition and possession.

5. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have appeared through counsel and filed written statement and defendant No.4 filed his separate written statement and they denied all the allegations made in the plaint and contend that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. The defendant No.4 who is the father of the plaintiff also filed separate written statement but he supported the case of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.4 passed away.

6. The Trial Court given an opportunity to plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff examined one witness as PW1 and got marked document Ex.P1 to P16. On the other hand, the defendant No.2 has been examined as DW1 and not produced any documents. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered the issue No.1 as partly affirmative by taking note of the fact that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties but not accepted the contention that those properties are not divided and answered issue No.2 as negative and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled for ½ share in the property of his father and not in entire property of the suit schedule properties. The defendants have proved that they are entitled for the share in term