GOWRAMMA Vs. SUBBANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience. The present appeal is by the plaintiffs. The suit was for a declaration that a compromise decree dated 19-9-1991 in the civil suit in OS 318/1987, was not binding on the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiffs claimed partition and separate possession of a 5/6th share of the suit schedule B property - that had fallen to the share of defendant no. 1 in the final decree proceedings in FDP 8/1987 and for other incidental reliefs.

(2.) The background to the suit is as follows:-

(3.) Defendant no. 1, 3 and 4 to 7, had filed their written statements and contested the suit. Defendant no. 8, a purchaser of one of the items of the suit property had impleaded herself as a party to the suit. She was said to have purchased item no. 6 of the suit schedule from the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1. The plaintiffs had subsequently deleted item no. 6 from the suit schedule.