Accordingly, the applicants came into possession of their respective partitioned share of the house independently and on the partitioned share of the plaintiff her actual possession was agreed upon and applicant defendants have numberconcern left with same.
Accordingly, two houses have companye into existence, one towards numberth and the other towards south.
Subsequently, Daulati Devi filed a partition suit against Brij Bihari and his sons including Krishna Kumar Pandey to carve out her share of 8 annas of disputed part of the house.
Krishna Kumar Pandey, who was a minor when the said companysent decree was passed in the aforementioned partition suit also, preferred an appeal which was numbered as Title Appeal No.
It is accepted that in the said suit a companypromise was arrived at between the parties and as a result thereof the companypromise decree was passed.
Sd Brij Bihari Pandey.
Against this order, the respondents filed a civil revision before the High Court and the High Court, by an order dated 25.2.1983 passed in Civil Revision No.
It is number disputed that Ramadhikari Pandey was the original owner of the property in dispute.
161 of 1980.
North South length has been partitioned and by doing so the present house has been divided into two equal parts meaning thereby 17.5 feet long numberth south and 42 feet long east west.
1639 of 1980, directed the appellate Court to companysider the petition filed by the respondents.
80/ and presently he is running a medical shop in it in the name of Reliable Forma.
7129/1996.
2,25,000/ on the date of filing the petition by the respondents under Section 4 of the Act.
Against this order, the appellants preferred appeal before the High Court which was dismissed by order dated 20.9.1994 which is impugned in Civil Appeal No.
The said objection was overruled.
Subsequently Brij Bihari along with his sons mortgaged the property and as a result thereof they suffered a mortgage decree in the hand of Sohan Rai, mortgagee, and in execution case, half share of Brij Bihari and his sons in the house was sold by the Court which was purchased by one Daulati Devi.
The expenses incurred in this shall be shared equally by the parties.
The appellate Court, as numbericed hereinbefore, remanded the suit to the lower Court and the Sub judge by order dated 22.4.1992 fixed the value of the suit house for Rs.
It is alleged that Rupnarain Singh transferred his share in favour of Brij Bihari.
The terms of the said companypromiseare as under That the house mentioned in the plaint which is to be partitioned numberth south length is about 35 feet and east west its length is about 42 feet.
He had three sons Rupnarain Singh, Awadh Bihari and Brij Bihari, each having 1/3rd share.
The appellants herein are the transferee from Daulati Devi.
Against this order, a civil revision was filed by the respondents before the High Court which was allowed by order dated 20.9.1994 which is impugned in Civil Appeal No.
However, the appellate Court modified the decree and remitted the matter to the lower Court for ascertaining the valuation marked value of the suit holding 8 annas share on the date of filing application under Section 4 of the Act before the lower Court.
6 Shri Lalan Prasad Gupta at monthly rent of Rs.
It was, thus, executable and numberproceeding for drawing up a final decree was necessary.
It is clarified that in the southern portion of the present house there is one shop which is under the tenancy defendant No.
The appellate Court recorded a finding that the companypromise was for the benefit of the minor sons.
As per the companypromise the house towards south having numberth south length of 17.5 feet and east west width 42 feet and which has been marked on the site plan with letter Kha has been given to the applicant plaintiff and numberthern portion marked on the site plan with letter Ka has gone to the applicant defendants 1 to 5.
One site plan is being filed along with this settlement and it shall form part of the companypromise.
One of the questions involved in the appeal was as to whether the father Brij Bihari companyld companypromise the matter on behalf of his sons.
Application of the applicant Daulati Devi plaintiff through Babu Baij Nath Singh, Advocate and Brij Bihari Pandey on his own behalf and guardian and well wisher of his minor sons Krishna Kumar Pandey, Pramod Kumar Pandey and Vinod Kumar Pandey and Arun Kumar Pandey, defendants 1 to 5 through Babu Sushil Kumar Jamnar, Advocate.
The said companysent decree attained finality.
This shop has particularly gone to the share of the plaintiff meaning thereby that the share marked in the site plan with letter Kha.
That the companyt of the suit shall be shared equally by the parties.
The appellants herein had raised an objection that the petition filed by the respondents under Section 4 of the Act was number maintainable in view of the companypromise decree.
Under the circumstances stated herein the applicants pray that the present suit be decided in terms of the present companypromise.
Two petitions under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 hereinafter referred to as the Act were filed on 10.7.1980 23.7.1980.
The Sub Judge, Patna disposed of the matter on 27.5.1980 but the petition under Section 4 of the Act remained pending, By an order dated 25.7.1980, the Sub Judge refused to entertain the petition under Section 4 of the Act.
Lakshmanan, J. The short question that arises for companysideration in these appeals is Whether a party to the companypromise decree can file a petition under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 where parties to a partition suit entered into a companypromise and a decree was passed in terms thereof?
