In partition suits, a compromise among co-owners is valid even in the presence of third-party claims, provided it does not extinguish their rights.

ORDER :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicants being aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Fifteenth Additional Judge, Junior Division to the Court of First Civil Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 365A/2024, whereby the joint application filed by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) has been rejected.

2. By way of this civil revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief:-

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to allow this revision application and may kindly allow application under O 23 R 3 CPC and further disposed off the civil suit as per compromise deed entered by the parties in the interest of justice.”

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the applicants/plaintiffs are real brothers. Their father, Late Shri Imam Bakhsh, was the recorded Bhumiswami and owner of agricultural lands bearing Khasra No. 41/2 admeasuring 0.3240 hectares, Khasra No. 41/3 admeasuring 0.6600 hectares and Khasra No. 42/3 admeasuring 1.0510 hectares, total three Khasras admeasuring 2.0350 hectares (approximately 5.02 acres), situated at Village Kathadih, P.H. No. 00083, R.N.M. Raipur-18 Kandul, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.), duly recorded in the revenue records in his name. The aforesaid agricultural land is the subject matter of dispute between the parties. It is contended that Late Shri Imam Bakhsh expired on 27.01.2024. The defendant No. 1, Smt. Kausar Bano, is the second wife of Late Shri Imam Bakhsh. After his demise, disputes arose between the applicants and defendant No. 1 with regard to declaration of title, partition, possession and permanent injunction over the suit property. Consequently, the applicants instituted a civil suit against defendant No. 1. Upon issuance of notice, defendant No. 1 appeared and filed her written statement before the learned trial Court.

4. During pendency of the suit, the matter was amicably settled between the applicants and defendant No. 1. Pursuant to the settlement, the parties jointly filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC before the learned trial Court. In support of the compromise, evidence of applicants No. 1 and 2 Nasir Bakhsh and Shahid Bakhsh as well as non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Kausar Bano was recorded, and the compromise deed was placed on record. However, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 20.01.2026, rejected the said application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC on the ground of alleged non-joinder of parties and held that in absence of such parties, the compromise application could not be accepted.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present civil revision.

6. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 is wholly illegal, erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law governing compromise of suits and necessary parties in a partition matter. It is submitted that the suit instituted by the applicants was purely a suit for declaration, partition and possession of their lawful share i