When the persons are not parties to the compromise – when the subject property is a joint family property – That compromise is not binding on them who are not the parties to the compromise.


When the persons are not parties to the compromise – when the subject property is a joint family property – That compromise is not binding on them who are not the parties to the compromise.

24. Indisputedly, respondent nos. 1 to 6 (original plaintiffs) were

not parties to the compromise dated 25th  March, 1976 and the

subject property at that time was joint family property and the

compromise entered into between the parties would not bind the

rights   of   respondent   nos.   1   to   6(grandsons   of   propositus

Chikkanna).

25. It   is   an   admitted   fact   on   record   that   the   property   was

purchased   by   Chikkanna   from   his   sister   Thayamma   and

respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendants nos. 2 to 4) have inherited the

property after death of propositus Chikkanna.  Respondent nos.

1 to 6 are children of respondent nos. 7 and 8(defendants nos. 2

and 3), it would be an ancestral property in their hands and

indisputedly respondent nos. 1 to 6 are neither parties to the

proceedings   nor   consented   when   the   compromise   decree   was

executed in Execution Appeal No. 2 of 1974 (Exhibit P­8) dated

7th March, 1974 and admittedly the same would not be binding

upon their share over the property.

IN THE SUPEME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION        CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7141 OF 2008 DODDAMUNIYAPPA(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS MUNISWAMY & ORS. ….Respondent(s)