The present second appeal by the unsuccessful

plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree of the courts

below, whereby, the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration

that the compromise decree in O.S.No.9/2005 dated

15.01.2005 is not binding on the plaintiffs' legitimate

share in the suit property and for decree of their 3/4^th

share in the suit lands by metes and bounds and for

partition and separate possession came to be dismissed by

the courts below.

The parties herein are referred to as per their

ranking before the trial court.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that the

compromise entered before the Lok-Adalath is in the

absence of the plaintiffs and the decree in O.S.No.9/2005

dated 15.01.2005 is not binding upon the plaintiffs'

legitimate share in the suit property, as the plaintiffs are

not parties to the said compromise.

- 6 -

Defendant Nos.1 to 5 appeared before the trial

court and defendant No.2 filed written statement resisting

the claim of the plaintiffs and the same was adopted by

defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5 and they contended that the

plaintiffs have no right to challenge the compromise

decree recorded before the Lok-Adalath.

The trial court on the basis of the pleadings,

framed the following issues:

"1.

Whether

the

plaintiffs

prove

that

the

defendants have obtained a collusive decree

in

OS

No.9/2005

without

making

the

plaintiffs as parties to the said suit?

Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the

said decree in O.S.No.9/2005 disposed of by

the Hon'ble Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Indi is not

binding on them?

Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are

entitled to 3/4^th share in the suit property?

Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they

are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?"

In order to substantiate the claim of the

plaintiffs, plaintiff No.6 got examined herself as P.W.1 and

- 7 -

examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked

documents at Exs.P.1 to 4. On the other hand, defendant

No.1 examined herself as D.W.1 and examined three

witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 4 and got marked documents at

Exs.D.1 to D.7.

7.

The trial court by its judgment and decree

dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the

plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendants have

obtained a collusive decree in O.S.No.9/2005 without

making the plaintiffs as parties to the said suit and even

the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the said decree in

OS No.9/2005 is not binding on the plaintiffs.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the

plaintiffs preferred first appeal before first appellate Court.

The first appellate court on re-appreciation and re-

analyzing the entire oral and documentary evidence placed

before it, held that suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable

since the plaintiffs have challenged the compromise decree

entered before the Lok-Adalath. Against the concurrent

- 8 -

findings of the courts below, the present appeal is filed by

the plaintiffs.

Heard

Sri

D.P.Ambekar,

learned

counsel

appearing for the appellants - plaintiffs and Sri Umesh V.

Mamadapur, learned counsel for respondents - defendant

Nos.1 to 4 and perused the material placed on record.

10.

The plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking for

the relief of declaration to declare that the compromise

decree passed in O.S.No.9/2005 before the Lok-Adalat is

not binding on their legitimate shares which could be

evidenced from the prayer made in the suit and also

sought the relief of partition and separate possession of

their 3/4^th share in the suit land.

11.

The record reveals that the mother of the

plaintiffs was party in the compromise petition and also in

the original suit in OS No.9/2005. The plaintiffs contended

that in the compromise, the plaintiffs' mother was given

10 acres of land for her maintenance till her life time and

- 9 -

the said arrangement was not as per their personal law.

As per the pleadings of the defendants, it is also admitted

by defendants that out of the suit property which was in

exclusive possess