Mahitosh Majumdar, J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against the Order No. 33 passed by the Assistant District Judge at Alipore dated April 20, 1988, for setting aside the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 210 of 1983 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts of the case, for effective determination of the present challenge, byway of revision are, in short, placed below : The Title Suit No. 21 of 1983 culminated in passing of final decree in terms of Solenama dated February 6, 1984. By an application under Section 151 of tho Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the said application' hereafter), the said compromise decree was challenged on the ground of fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation. The suit for partition between the parties was filed on December 6, 1983, together with the petition for compromise (for brevity the said petition hereafter) under Order 23 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was usual prayer for preliminary decree in respect of the properties covered by the Schedule for the proposed partition.
(2.) The signatories to the said compromise were Jnanendra Chandra (since deceased), Pranab Kumar Natb, Anil Baran Nath and Pratibha Bhowmick (for brevity 'the petitioners' hereafter) who on the death of Jnanendra Chandra Nath are transposed as the plaintiffs by an order dated April 11, 1989. The said petition was filed by Smt. Namita Basu Roy, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri Sankar Ganguly, the learned Advocate for the Defendant No. 4. By the said compromise, prayer for final partition was made. The allotment war made on engineering valuation with schedule wise property "A" to "E" with the rights of user of the common portion of the properties as per schedules "F" and "G". Payment of owelty money as per Schedule "H" was the foundation of the proposed scheme for the compromise. The said application has been filed for setting aside the said compromise decree on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and unjust enrichment. The signature of the opposite party No. 1 in the said petition was fraudulently obtained. The opposite party No. 1 further alleged that her Advocate in collusion with the opposite party practised fraud. The alleged partition was, in actuality, partial partition. The savings of the mother of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and wife of the plaintiff, Sm Hemaprabha Devi rents thus collected from May, 1977, ornaments income, shops, movables of her estate were not made part of the compromise. Sm Hemaprabha Devi died intestate on May 18, 1977. Hemaprabha Devi left behind her (wo sons and (wo daughters and her husband (since deceased) as her legal heirs, each of them having one-fifth share of her properties.
(3.) After the death of Hemaprabha Devi, there was a prolonged dialogue between the plaintiff's husband end her sons and daughters for the purpose of amicable partition of the joint properties by metes and bounds. The petitioner (since deceased) was then aged about 88 years. At that time, the petitioner relied on the suggestion of Birendra Kumar Bhowmick, husband of the defendant No. 4. Thereafter, there was a discussion among the parties in presence of the learned Advocate Sri Hrishikesh Ghosh and Birendra Kumar Bhowmick. Ultimately, it was decided that the suit should be filed and it should be decreed on consent m terms of the said petition containing the agreed terms and conditions made therein. To avoid time and expenses, the said petition was drafted on the lines of suggestion given by Sri Birendra Kumar Bhowmick and opposite party No. 1, Pabitra Bhowmick and the said draft was approved by Sri Hrishikesh Ghosh, the learned Advocaie for the petitioner (since deceased) and by Sri Sankar Ganguly, the learned Advocate for the defendant No. 4.;