Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It is further stated in the plaint that the first defendant filed suit O.S. No. 484/67 on the file of the Munsiff, Sagar, seeking a declaration to set aside the sale to an extent of his 1/3rd share. After contest the suit came to be dismissed on 31.7.1970. He preferred an appeal in R.A.93/70 on the file of the Civil Judge, Shimogs. After contest on 20.3.1972 the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. The second defendant preferred a second appeal in R.S.A. 707/72 before this Court On 3.4.1978 a compromise was entered into in the second appeal. In terms of the compromise Land bearing No. 57 of Narasipura measuring 1.03 acres was given to the first defendant by way of his share which is admittedly in excess of the suit claim. Even if the suit had been decreed, the first defendant would not have been entitled to the said extent of land. It is stated that the suit itself was not maintainable because the sale proceeds derived out of the said lands have been utilised and employed for the development of the first defendant father's business and also for the education of the first defendant. It was not a joint family property of the first defendant. It was a self acquired property of his father. Plaintiff came to know that on account of the careless management of the suit by the second defendant it ended in failure. He has yielded to the first defendant who is his close relative. The second defendant had no power or authority to enter into such a compromise. The said compromise is not for legal necessity or benefit of the plaintiff. Even otherwise the compromise is not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Now the first defendant is frying to execute the said decree in Ex. No. 168/78. Therefore, on coming to know of the same, the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration that the compromise decree said to have been entered into between the second defendant and the first defendant in R.S.A. No. 707/72 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka is null and void and unenfoceable and not injunction restraining the first defendant, his men and representatives, etc., from executing the compromise decree and for other reliefs. The suit is filed on 22.5.1989.