The validity of a compromise decree and its binding nature on the parties involved.

1. The plaintiffs have filed this First Appeal against they judgment and decree dated 20.06.1984 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sub Judge, Madhubani in Title Suit No.144 of 1980 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the plaintiff appellant’s suit.

2. The plaintiffs appellants filed the aforesaid title suit praying for declaration that the deed of gift dated 04.04.1977 executed by Bhulak Chaudhary, defendant No.4 in favour of Ramrati Devi, defendant No.1, and the two registered sale deed dated 19.09.1977 executed by Bhulak Chaudhary in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that the suit property was the subject matter of Partition Suit No.101 of 1976. The said suit was filed by these plaintiffs against their father, Baidhnath Chaudhary and grand father, Bhulak Chaudhary. According to them, Bhulak Chaudhary had gifted the properties to plaintiff No.2 and 3 and Sushil Kumar Chaudhary and he had no property left for himself. Sushil Kumar Chaudhary, the brother of plaintiff No.2 and 3 died. Baidhnath Chaudhary, the father of these plaintiff No.2 and 3 and husband of plaintiff No.1 had bad habit and was trying to destroy the joint family property, therefore, the Partition Suit No.101 of 1976 was filed. It was compromised between the parties. After disposal of the title suit, Bhulak Chaudhary filed Title Suit No.38 of 1970 challenging the compromise decree which was also compromised. Subsequently, the plaintiffs learnt that Bhulak Chaudhary had executed the aforesaid gift deed and registered sale deed. Therefore, the suit had been filed for declaration.

4. The defendant No.1, i.e., Ramrati Devi, daughter of Bhulak Chaudhary, although filed written statement but did not contest the suit. The defendant No.2 and 3 contested the suit by filing contesting written statement. Their main defence is that Sushil Kumar Chaudhary died on 13.06.1977 and not in the month of October, 1977, therefore, the compromise decree passed in title suit in favour of dead person is a nullity in the eye of law. These defendants also deny the gift made by Bhulak Chaudhary in favour of the plaintiff No.2 and 3. According to them, Bhulak Chaudhary never relinquished his share in the joint family property. Therefore, he has filed Title Suit No.38 of 1978. Further, prior to compromise decree, they had already purchased the suit property on payment of consideration amount. Their names have also been mutated. All other allegations are denied. They were not party in the compromise decree, therefore, it is not binding on them.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court farmed the following issues:-

(a) Have the plaintiffs got valid cause of action and right to sue the defendants?

(b) Is the suit maintainable as framed?

(c) Is the suit barred by law of limitation, principle of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence and under Section 34 Specific Relief Act?

(d) Is the suit bad for jon-joinder of necessary party?

(e) Is the decree passed in P.S. No.101/76 is genuine, valid and operating and, if no, is it binding on the defendants?

(f) Are the sale deeds dt.19.09.1977 and the Atainama dt.04.04.1974 fraudulent, void, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

(g) Are the plaintiffs entitled to get decree as prayed for in the plaint?

(h) Are the plaintiffs entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for in the present suit?

6. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the evidences came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Sushil Kumar Chaudhary died in October, 1977. On the other hand, the defendants proved the fact that Sushil Kumar Jha@ Chaudhary actually died on 13.06.1977. Therefore, the compromise petition purported to have been signed by both the parties is wrong and decree is a nullity. The compromise petition does not bear the signature of Bhulak Chaudhary, therefore, also the