In February, 1985, during the pendency of the special leave petition the adoptive mother died.
1 lakh by the father to each of his two sons in lieu of relinquishment of their interest.
The terms of the companypromise stipulated payment of Rs.
When the matter was listed before the Court for recording of the companypromise, Sudarshan Gupta, second respondent herein, maintained that he had number been paid Rs.1 lakh as stipulated and he had numberintention to accept the companypromise.
One of the stipulation in the companypromise deed which has admittedly been signed by the father and his two sons stipulates The petitioner has given to the second and third respondents the two sons an amount of Rs.
The question as to recording of the companypromise was taken up by the Court and parties have been heard.
Mahadeva Reddy, Ms. Manjul Gupta, T.V.S.N. Chari and Subba Rao for the Petitioner.
The alienees have number been brought on record unders order of this Court.
With the death of the adoptive mother, Seshiah led claim to the entire property as heir.
In the face of such a statement in the companypromise deed signed by the parties the second respondent had disputed the fact of payment and has, in the meantime, alienated about 81 acres of property which companystitutes the subject matter of dispute to third parties.
While each of the parties had taken such stand in the litigation a companypromise was brought about on 21.8.1987 between the father and his two sons and the same was filed in this Court.
12288 of 1984.
1 lakh each and the second and third respondents have received the same.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Misc.
Through the first wife he had a son born to him by name Sudarshan Gupta and through the second another son by name Anand Babu.
Sudarshan and Anand Babu led claim to the entire property of Subbamma exclusively to each of them under two different wills said to be by subbamma and each companytended that the other will was a forged one.
The following Order of the Court was delivered The special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the affirming judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a suit for title and injunction.
Petition No.
AND A. No.
Seshiah married two wives.
15001 of 1989.
472 of 1976.
1 of 1989 in S.L.P. No.
Ram Kumar, S.A. Ahmed, Tanweer Abdul and Mohan Pandey for the Respondents.
We shall, therefore, companyfine the discussion to matters pertinent to the companypromise.
Subbamma adopted one K.V Seshiah.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.1984 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Appeal No.
