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)
