Dinesh Mehta, J.

The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellant - son of Abhimanyu, being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 05.12.1987 passed by learned District Judge, Sriganganagar.

2. The facts giving rise to and relevant for deciding the present appeal, succinctly stated are that a suit for partition was filed by the plaintiffs - Harikishan and Bansidhar, sons of one Surajmal, resident of Village Phephana, Tehsil Nohar, District Sriganganagar, against six defendants, namely, Surajmal, Ram Pratap, Gauri Shankar, Abhimanyu, Mathara Devi and Kunti.

3. As per the facts stated in the plaint, Surajmal, son of Jagannath, contracted two marriages first with Kunti and thereafter with Mathara Devi. His first wife Kunti had two sons namely Harikishan and Bansidhar (plaintiffs); whereas Ram Pratap, Gauri Shankar and Abhimanyu, being defendants No. 2 to 4 were born out of his wedlock with Mathara.

4. The suit so filed by the plaintiff resulted in a preliminary decree dated 24.03.1961, vide which the joint family property was held divisible between the plaintiffs and defendants, each one of them was held entitled to ?th share.

5. The defendants preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 24.03.1961, which was disposed of by this Court, vide its judgment dated 30.07.1971 (Civil First Appeal No. 50/1961). During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, and before the partition by metes and bounds could take place Smt. Kunti passed away, consequently, each plaintiff and defendant became entitled to 1/7th share but for this small modification, the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1961 was affirmed.

6. Surajmal, defendant No. 1 passed away on 16.01.1983, while the proceedings for preparation of final decree were pending.

7. The appellant Virendra Kumar, along with his two brothers Pramod Kumar and Vinod Kumar, being sons of Abhimanyu (grandsons of Surajmal) filed an application on 22.06.1987 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking their impleadment in the aforesaid case No. 69/1982, on the basis of two wills said to have been executed by Surajmal and Mathara in their favour; allegedly bequeathing their respective share in the joint family property, stemming from the preliminary decree dated 24.3.1961 and the final decree dated 29.4.1977. The applicants sought their impleadment in the proceedings, to stake claim for the 1/7th share in the property to which Surajmal (their grand father) was entitled. The said application dated 22.6.1987 was filed under the signatures of all the three applicants, namely Pramod Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Virendra Kumar.

8. Subsequent thereto, the parties to the proceedings have arrived at a settlement in Lok Adalat and a written compromise came to be executed and was placed before the court below with a request to pass a decree in terms thereof. The compromise aforesaid, duly signed by plaintiffs Harikishan, Banshidhar and defendants Ram Pratap, Abhimanyu, Gaurishanker including two of the applicants namely Vinod Kumar and Pramod Kumar (sons of Abhimanyu), identified by their respective counsel was presented in the Court below. In light of the aforesaid compromise, executed with an object of giving quietus to the long drawn dispute between the brothers, the trial Court passed a judgment and decree on 05.12.1987, recording presence of the parties, while obtaining their signatures on the order-sheet of the trial Court. By way of the judgment and decree dated 5.12.1987, drawn on the basis of the compromise of even date, the trial Court partitioned the property between the plaintiffs and defendants including Abhimanyu (the father of the appellant).

9. Laying challenge to the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 5.12.1987, the appellant preferred the present appeal on 1.3.1988, which had been admitted on 10.4.1988 and after hearing the counsel for Appellant and Respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5, the framing of the fin