IMPORTANT POINT
Compromise decrees in partition suits involving minors without their inclusion are void and can be challenged based on coercion or lack of lawful procedure.

JUDGMENT :

NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY, J.

1. I have already heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 24.03.1990 passed by the learned sub-ordinate Jude-IV, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 09/87, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the father of the plaintiffs/appellants filed Partition Suit No. 11 of 1980 in the court of Sub-Judge Sitamarhi for partition against his father and brother. The father of the appellants/plaintiffs was respondent no. 7 herein who died and was substituted by respondent nos. 7.1 to 7.3. The father and brother of respondent no. 7 have been impleaded as respondent no. 1 and 2, respectively, in the present appeal. In the partition suit filed by respondent no. 7, a compromise petition was filed on 25-01-1982 and preliminary decree was drawn on 26-05-1982.

4. The plaintiffs/appellants filed Title Suit No. 09 of 1987 to declare the compromise decree dated 26-05-1982 in Title Suit No. 11 of 1980 as illegal, void, and not binding on the plaintiffs/appellants. They also sought relief for declaration that the deed of gift dated 30-01-1984 executed by respondent No. 1 (grandfather of plaintiffs/appellants), in favour of Radha Devi, respondent No. 10, (daughter-in-law of respondent No. 1). The plaintiffs/appellants also made prayer for relief to declare the suit dated 09-06-1984 as not binding upon the plaintiffs/appellants. The said sale deed was executed by Awadh Narain Shah (the brother of respondent No. 7), in favour of Ram Chandra Rai (respondent No. 11). The plaintiffs/appellants’ averment is that they were not party to Title Suit No. 11 of 1980, and the compromise decree is behind their back. They were minors at that time, and his father, plaintiff of Title Suit No. 11 of 1980, put his LTI on the compromise petition under the coercion of his father and brother, respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

5. The defendants appeared and filed their written statements. Respondent Nos. 1, 5, and 10 filed their written statements, denying the averments of the plaintiffs. These opposite parties/defendants averred in their written statement that the plaintiffs and their father (respondent No.7) are in collusion and with intention to get the decree of a competent civil court null and void, they have filed the present suit. respondent No.7, father of the plaintiffs/appellants also filed his separate written statement and he supported the claim of the plaintiffs/appellants.

6. Respondent No. 7, father of the plaintiffs/appellants, also filed his separate written statement and he supported the claim of the plaintiffs/appellants.

7. The following issues were framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties:-

1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?

2. Have the plaintiffs got cause of action for the suit?

3. Is the suit barred by law of limitation, waiver, estoppel and acquaintance?

4. Is the suit barred under the provisions of specific relief Act? 5. Is the suit is bad for defect of parties?

6. Has the suit correctly been valued?

7. Is the court fee paid sufficient? 8. Is the suit is barred by the principal of res judicata?

9. Is the compromise decree passed in T.S.No.11/80 illegal and fraudulent?

10. Is the deed in question illegal, fraudulent and without consideration?

11. Is the sale deed dated 9.6.1984 executed by Avadh Narain Shah in favour of Ramchandra Sah binding on the plaintiffs?

12. Is there any unity of title and possession between the parties in recovery of suit land?

13. Are the plaintiffs entitled for a preliminary recovery of possession, if so to what extent of their share?

14. To what other relief or reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled for