GURUSHARAN SHARMA,J. - (1.) PETITIONER No. 1 and opposite party No. 9 together filed partition suit No. 22 of 1992 wherein petitioner No. 3 and opposite parties 1 to 8 were made defendants. Parties to the said suit were the descendants of Chaman Mahto. It was disposed of on 9.3.1999 in terms of compromise and the compromise petition was made part of decree.
(2.) TITLE Suit No. 39 of 1992 was filed by opposite parties 1 to 8 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and opposite parties 9 to 14 from going upon the suit land, detailed in Schedule B to the plaint and in -terferring with their possession. Plaintiffs claim in the said suit was that there was previous partition, wherein the lands in question were allotted to them and they were enjoying peaceful possession thereon. Consequent upon compromise in the aforesaid partition suit a separate petition for compromise on the same terms was prepared and filed in the suit for injunction also.
(3.) AFTER disposal of partition suit No. 22 of 1992. aforesaid on compromise, in fact. Title Suit No. 39 of 1992 had become infruc -tuous.;