FA/8/2021
2023 Latest Caselaw 2164 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  FA No.8 of 2021
                                  Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Mr. Aditya Singh, counsel for the appellants.

2. Ms. Monika Pant, counsel for respondent no.1.

3. Mr. Pankaj Miglani and Mr. Daval Mehrotra, counsel for respondent no.2.

4. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, counsel for respondent no.4.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants were not the party in the suit from which this appeal is arising; that, the suit was between the father of the present appellants and his brothers and mother, who had compromised the matter and on the basis of this compromise the partition decree was passed by the trial court; that, the decree of partition on compromise between the parties has affected the rights of the present appellants i.e. the children of respondent no.4. Hence this appeal.

6. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Miglani, counsel for respondent no.2 would submit that Section 96 of the C.P.C. does not permit any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by consent which includes compromise also.

7. In reply to that, counsel for the appellants would submit that the property in question of the present appeal was originally a Hindu Undivided Property created by the grandfather of the present appellants and the respondents, except his wife (respondent no.3 herein) and after the death of the Karta i.e. grandfather of the appellants and father of the respondents, except respondent no.3, the H.U.F. partakes the character of the coparcenary and, therefore, the appellants had got right and share into such coparcenary at the time of their respective births; that, therefore, respondent no.2 being father of the appellants was legally not competent to enter into any compromise to the detriment to the rights and interest of the present appellants as the coparceners.

8. Counsel for the respondents would submit that the question is whether H.U.F. shall partake the character of coparcenery on demise of original Karta of H.U.F. On this, learned counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the respondents seek time to find out the case law on this point and to place the same before the Court on the next date.

9. Put up on 16.08.2023.

10. Till the next date of listing, the parties are directed not to create third party interest in the property in question.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 09.08.2023 BS