The main legal point established is that a lawful compromise between the parties must be accepted by the court, and third parties with no enforceable legal right in the suit property cannot challenge the compromise.

Heard Mr. J.K. Verma, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Harish Kumar, the learned counsel for the sole respondent and Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, the learned counsel for the applicants, who have prayed to be added as intervener-respondents in this appeal.

2. This appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree of reversal by the appellate court below whereby the appeal has been allowed setting aside the dismissal of the suit. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for the reliefs seeking partition the half share in the suit property and also for declaration of the gift deeds dated 05.04.1991 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant nos. 2 to 4 for the suit land as nullity, forged, fabricated, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff.

3. A compromise petition (I.A. No. 666 of 2013) has been filed by the parties to the appeal stating therein that they have amicably resolved their dispute and have agreed for disposal of appeal in terms of the compromise enumerated in the compromise petition. In the compromise petition, the plaintiff-respondent has admitted the fact of previous partition of the family property by metes and bounds and has unconditionally withdrawn his assail to the deeds of gift dated 05.04.1991 and recognized donee-defendant nos. 2 to 4 as owners in possession of the gifted properties.

4. Thereafter, the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 873 of 2013) has been filed under order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. on behalf of Kumari Bhushan Sharma praying for her addition as respondent no. 2 in the present appeal on the ground that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff-respondent sold 5 decimals of land of old plot no. 2344 by executing a registered sale deed dated 02.07.2004 in her favour. It has been further stated in the interlocutory application that the purchased 5 decimal of land of old plot no. 2344 is also the suit land and name of the intervener-purchaser has been mutated in the Anchal Office and she has been paying rent and getting rent receipts. It has been also averred that the plaintiff-respondent has collusively made the compromise with the appellants and therefore her addition as party of this appeal is desirable to protect her interest.

5. Another interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1223 of 2013) has been filed by the three applicants named therein who have claimed that the plaintiff-respondent has sold 5 decimals of land of old plot no. 2344 which is part of the suit land, during the pendency of the suit in favour of their mother (now deceased) and after purchase, the name of their mother has also been mutated in the Anchal Office and they are paying rent and getting rent receipts. It has been alleged that the plaintiff-respondent has gone in collusion with the appellants and has filed the collusive compromise petition and therefore their addition as party respondent in this appeal is desirable to protect their interest in the suit property.

6. Another two interlocutory applications (I.A. No. 1221 of 2013 and I.A. No. 1222 of 2013) have been filed by the applicants named therein stating that the plaintiff-respondent has entered into the agreements with them for sale of the parts of the suit property, during the pendency of the appeal in the court below after the dismissal of the suit. The applicant in I.A. No. 1222 of 2013 has further claimed to have paid Rs. 20,50000/- as advance money to the plaintiff-respondent in pursuance to the agreement for sale. However, no such statement regarding payment of advance money to the plaintiff-respondent has been made by the applicants in I.A. No. 1221 of 2013.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent as well as the learned counsel for the proposed intervener-applicants have been heard at length on the aforesaid interlocutory application for compromise and the interlocutory applications for addition as party-respondents. The factual matrix of the case would unveil that the p