An agreement executed during litigation that results in receiving substantial consideration can lead to a loss of locus standi to pursue claims related to the same property.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.1185/2007 whereby plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration of ownership and also cancellation of the decree passed in O.S.No.1036/2007 is dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case are as under:

Plaintiff in the suit specifically asserted that defendant Nos. 1 to 9 are the wife and children of one Patel Chikkamuniyappa, younger brother of original plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 10 and 11 are the erstwhile owners of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff is asserting title on the basis of the partnership deed dated 18.9.1984. Plaintiff asserts that in a family partition, the present suit schedule property was item No.5 and the same was allotted to plaintiff's share.

4. Plaintiff also traces origin of this land as a Jodi Inam Land, which was under cultivation of plaintiff's vendor. Plaintiff has pleaded that even before re-grant of suit schedule property, the suit land was conveyed by the ancestor of defendant Nos. 11 and 12 in favour of Chikkamuniyappa, while Chikkamuniyappa purchased 1.10 acres from the father of defendant Nos. 11 and 12 Mudduriga and Chikkamudduriga. The remaining extent was also purchased by Chikkamuniyappa from Chikkasonnamma to an extent of one acre under registered sale deed dated 6.8.1962. Chikkasonnamma had purchased one acre from the other two branches of the grantee's family i.e. (defendant Nos. 10 and 11).

5. The present suit is filed primarily aggrieved by the compromise decree entered into between defendant Nos. 1 to 9, who are the legal heirs of Patel Chikkamuniyappa and defendant Nos. 10 and 11 in O.S.1036/2007. Plaintiff alleges that suit property was allotted to his share in the family partition effected in 1984 and therefore, it is the collusive compromise decree, which is now challenged in the present suit.

6. Defendant Nos. 10 and 11, who are the contesting defendants, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Justifying the compromise entered into between defendant Nos. 1 to 9 and 10 and 11, the defendant Nos. 10 and 11 asserted that there was a subsequent agreement between plaintiff and defendant Nos. 10 and 11 and in terms of the agreement, plaintiff has given up his right by receiving a sum of Rs.31 Lakhs and deed of relinquishment is executed on 24.12.2007. On these set of grounds, defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. The trial Court on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence and adverting to Ex.D9(a), which is the agreement dated 24.12.2007, proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground that plaintiff having received a sum of Rs.31 Lakhs is estopped from claiming ownership, consequently, the suit is dismissed.

8. The matter was extensively heard by this Court.Though the core dispute revolves around a narrow compass, in view of complexity of facts, the counsel on record were called upon to prepare a flow chart and a brief synopsis. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has furnished the flow chart and detailed synopsis. The learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos. 10 and 11 has also filed a detailed synopsis.

9. Learned counsel appearing for plaintiff No.1(a)(ii) has also addressed his arguments and has tried to persuade this Court to defer the hearing of the appeal on the premise that the suit is pending and any finding that would be recorded by this Court would have an adverse effect on Res