K.K. Sasidharan, J.

1. Whether in the absence of an agreement in writing, signed by all the parties, compromise of a Suit can be effected, leading to a compromise decree, is the core issue that arise for consideration in these two Review Applications.

Review ApplicationNo.145 of 2007:

2. The Second Respondent Mrs. Palaniammal, filed a Suit in O.S.No.766 of 1981 before the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, praying for a decree of partition, to divide the properties mentioned in “A” & “B” schedules into four equal shares and to allot one share to her with separate possession and enjoyment. According to the Second Respondent, the property originally belonged to her father Viyapuri Naicker and he died intestate in the year 1959 and he was survived by her, besides his widow and Respondent 2 & 3 and her brother Rangasami, the First Respondent in the Review Petition. The First Respondent being the eldest son and the only male member of the family, was helping and assisting the mother. He was looking after the agricultural operations and on account of his position as the sole male member of the family, the sisters had complete faith in him. According to the Second Respondent, taking advantage of the advantageous position, the First Respondent played fraud by obtaining signatures of the sisters, under the pretext that the signatures were required for getting high tension electric connection and made them to execute documents before the Sub-Registrar. The Second Respondent, after several years, came to know that on the strength of the documents executed by her and her sisters, the First Respondent became the absolute owner of the property mentioned in schedule “A” & “B”. She also came to know that the documents executed by her and her sisters were nothing but a Release Deed in favour of the First Respondent, releasing their rights in the co-ownership property. The Suit was resisted by the First Respondent by filing a detailed Written Statement.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge, rejected the case of the Second Respondent. The Trial Court opined that the Release Deed dated 16th February 1972 was genuine and it was acted upon. Accordingly, by accepting the genuineness of the Release Deed, marked as Ex.A1, the Suit was dismissed.

4. The Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.765 of 1981 was taking by up before this Court in A.S.No.753 of 1984. The learned Single Judge ultimately set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Lower Court and a direction was issued to the Trial Court to pass a final decree in terms of the judgment.

5. The Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.753 of 1984 was challenged by First Respondent before the Division Bench in L.P.A.No.121 of 2000. The Applicants in Review Application No.145 of 2007 were parties to the Letters Patent Appeal. During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, Respondents 1 & 2, compromised the matter and filed a Memo of Compromise dated 15th March 2004. Similarly, the First Respondent produced a Memo of compromise stated to have been signed by the Third Respondent.

6. The Division Bench found that the Respondents 2,7,12, in the Appeal have not entered appearance. Respondents 11, 13, 16, 17, 23, to 25 were given up by the First Respondent/Appellant. The learned Counsel for the First Respondent submitted before the Division Bench that the Letters Patent Appeal can be disposed of by Court as agreed to between the First Respondent (Plaintiff) and Respondents 1 & 3 (Respondents 1 & 3 in the Appeal). The Letter Patent Appeal was disposed of in terms of the Memo of compromise. The compromise decree was passed on 17th March 2004.

7. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that the First Respondent played fraud on the Court and innocent purchasers, by including the properties assigned to the Review applicants and others on the strength of Ex.A1, in the share to be allotted to the Second Respondent. Though the Review Applicants were all parties to the Letters Patent Appeal, notice was not g