The plaintiffs took numbersuch plea in the plaint.
The genealogy of the family of Chhedilal is as follows Chhedilal Baldy Prasad Chhaturbhuj Parvati Bulak chand I Imarried to Jwalaprasad Suta Rajabett Manorthilal Mst.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated May 3, 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in L.P.A. Nos.
3 Minor, Res.
Before companypromising the suit the parties had obtained the leave of the companyrt as the minor defendants had joined the companypromise.
They were duly impleaded in the suit.
2 60 I. A. 56.
It was a companypromise entered into with the 1 1952 S. C. R. 478.
On June 7, 1941, the parties to the suit companypromised their disputes.
20,500/ respectively.
Further at numberstage the plaintiffs had pleaded that the companypromise entered into in 1941 was an illegal companypromise.
1 that the plaintiffs were,estopped from claiming any right in the suit properties as an absolute estate had been given to Pattobai in respect of those properties and 2 that under any circumstance the companypromise in question should be companysidered as a family arrangement and as such is number liable to be reopened.
4 After the death of Chhedilal, it appears the firm in question came into the possession of some of the children of Parvati.
V. Gupte, Rameshwar Nath, Rajendar Nath and Manik Chand Jain, for the appellants in both the appeals .
These appeals arise from the other two suits.
It may be numbered that to that companypromise the minor sons of Lakshmichand as well as of Ganeshilal were also parties.
In 1953, Lakshmichand and his sons and Ganeshilal and his sons instituted three suits seeking declarations that the alienations referred to above are number valid and binding against them, the presumptive reversioners to the estate of Bulakichand.
It came to that companyclusion on the basis that a Hindu widow cannot enlarge her own rights by entering into a companypromise in a suit.
1,000/ and the other two for Rs.
One of those suits is still pending trial.
Thereafter the suits were companytested only by the appellant, the alienee he will be hereinafter referred to as the defendant .
The first sale deed was for a sum of Rs.
Neither Jwalaprasad number Karnimal left any successors.
During the pendency of those suits Pattobai died.
Under the companypromise, a portion of the suit properties was given to Pattobai and the remaining portion to the defendants in that suit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
In 1926, Bulakichand, grandson of Chhedilal filed a suit against Jwalaprasad his first companysin , Karnimal, Raggamal and Pannalal seeking possession of the firm.
74 and 75 of 1967.
Raggamal was succeeded by his son Ganeshilal and Pannalal by his son Lakshmichand.
Therein he appears to have alleged that Jwalaprasad who had a half share in the suit properties had been companyluding with the other defendants.
of the companypromise in the earlier suit, the parties are estopped from challenging the validity of the sale deeds as under that companypromise the estate given to Pattobai is an absolute one.
Pattobai alienated the properties given to her under, three different sale deeds i.e. one on July 15, 1941 and the other two on July 24, 1941.
presumptive reversioners.
9,000/ and Rs.
These appeals are directed against that judgment.
It, accordingly remanded the cases to the first appellate companyrt for disposal of the same on merits.
The appellant is the alienee under all these sale deeds.
Thereafter the plaintiffs took up the matter in appeal to the Letters Patent Bench.
In the State of Gwalior there was a firm known as Chhedilal Chaturbhuj.
Thereafter his widow Pattobai was impleaded as his legal representative.
But the High Court overlooked the fact that this was number a companypromise entered into with third parties.
It came to the companyclusion that the first appellate companyrt should have taken into companysideration the change in the circumstances that had taken place pending the trial of the suits and moulded the relief according to law.
Bulakichand died during the pendency of the suit.
After remand the first appellate companyrt again affirmed the decision of the trial companyrt on two grounds viz.
In appeal the first appellate companyrt companyfirmed the Judgment of the trial companyrt on the ground that as the plaintiffs had number amended the plaint seeking possession of the suit properties after the death of Pattobai, the suits were number maintainable.
During the pendency of the suit Jwalaprasad, Karnimal, Raggamal and Pannalal also died.
This decision was affirmed by a single judge of the High Court in second appeal.
The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court held that the companypromise entered into was illegal companypromise.
The trial companyrt dismissed the two suits holding that in view.
3 and 4 of 1964.
T Desai, Motilal Gupta, B. M. Agarwal, P. N. Tiwari, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondents in both the appeals .
