A compromise decree may be recalled if it is found to have been executed under circumstances of deception and non-disclosure of relevant information regarding property rights.

ORDER :

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 151 CPC to recall the compromise decree dated 20-8-2007 in A.S.No.2327 of 2004. The petitioners are third parties to A.S.No.2327 of 2004.

2. Facts, in brief, leading to filing of A.S.No.2327 of 2004 by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.626 of 1996 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, are:-

Ramalkolu Veeraiah had four sons and two daughters, namely, Darga Sathaiah @ Ramalkolu Sathaiah, Darga Bikshapathi @ Ramalkolu Bikshapathi, Darga Sankiaraiah @ Ramalkolu Sankaraiah, Ramalkolu Pentaiah, Ramalkolu Pentamma and Rajamma. Veeraiah died on 09-08-1988. Darga Sathaiah, Darga Bikshapathi and Darga Sankaraiah filed O.S.No.626 of 1996 for partition and separate possession of their shares i.e., 1/4^th each in the suit schedule property. The suit schedule comprises agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-37 guntas and a house bearing No.3-74. According to them, the suit schedule properties belong to their father Veeraiah and therefore, they are entitled to 1/4^th share each. It is also their case that defendants 2 to 5, namely, Ramalkolu Rukmaiah, Ramalkolu Balaraj, Ramalkolu Gandaiah, Ramalkolu Narayana have no claim over the suit schedule properties. So far as two daughters of Pentaiah are concerned, they got married during the lifetime of Veeraiah and they have been residing with their respective husbands. Veeraiah had given dowry and certain properties to them at the time of marriage. They demanded defendant No.1, who is their brother, for partition and separate possession of their shares. But, defendant No.1 did not oblige them and therefore, they are constrained to file a suit for partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit schedule properties. Defendants 1 to 5 filed written statement and whereas, defendant No.6 filed memo adopting the written statement of defendants 1 to 5. According to the defendants, the suit schedule properties are inam lands and the lands have been in possession and enjoyment of Kummari community people. They are not ancestral lands of the plaintiffs. Defendants 1 to 5 are in possession of the lands for the last 40 years with the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 purchased “B” schedule house from the plaintiff No.3 in the year 1986 for Rs.10,000/- and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property as a purchaser. The father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 purchased one house at Balanagar and resided in that house and whereas Defendant No.1 settled at Dargah and has been residing in the “B” schedule house.

3. The trial Court settled the following issues for trial:-

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the properties by way of partition as prayed for?

2) Whether the defendants are perfected the title over the property by way of adverse possession?

3) Whether suit claim is barred by limitation?

4) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?

5) To what relief?

4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and two documents were marked as Exs.A-1 and A-2. On behalf of the defendants, three witnesses were examined as DWs.1 to 3 and 33 documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-33. The trial Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, held that plaint “A” schedule property are the inam lands and that the defendants came in to possession of the plaint “A” schedule property after abolition of Inams and obtained occupancy certificates and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the suit, by judgment dated 19-11-2003. The plainti