Gurusharan Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties, Partition Suit No. 114 of 1982 was decreed in terms of compromise dated 16.12.1986. In the said suit, the subject matter of partition was lands of R.S. Plot No. 1139 having an area of 97 decimals bearing Municipal Holding No. 1646 in Ward No. 6 -C of Ranchi Town.
(2.) LATE Prem Nath Kumar Mishra left behind three sons and three daughters. One of them Ariel Mishra was plaintiff. Two other sons were made defendants 3 and 4 and the three daughters were made defendants 1, 2 and 5 in the suit. The parties entered into compromise for dividing the suit property among themselves outside Court and according to the agreed allotments on spot, a sketch map was prepared which was signed by all the parties and was annexed with the joint petition of compromise filed by them in the suit on 8.12.1986. In the sketch map different areas allotted to each party along with common and individual passages to the main road as well as to the common well situated almost in the middle of the suit land was shown, for total area allotted to each one of them. Defendant No. 4 filed a petition after about nine and half years therein to set aside the aforesaid compromise decree, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 4 of 1996.
(3.) THE main objection was that the plaintiff duped him so far as areas allotted to him in the suit land was concerned and the compromise decree was obtained fraudulently. According to defendant No. 4 the sketch map prepared showing allotment was most unscientific and was not in scale and the total area allotted to the plaintiff including two exclusive passages were excessive in comparison to the area and the passage given to him. The parties adduced both oral and commentary evidence in the said Miscellaneous Case in support of their respective case. The Court below came to the conclusion that defendant No. 4 miserably failed to prove that any fraud was practiced by the plaintiff in arriving at and according compromise. All the parties including defendant No. 4 and their respective counsel agreed to the said allotments, put their signatures both on the compromise petition as well as on the sketch map and in case there was some difference regarding the area allotted to the parties, it was on their agreement and not by practicing fraud by the plaintiff.;