1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11647 of 2002 NARMDESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner : Md. Karan For the State : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar J.C. to S.C. V --------------- 06 16.07.2008 Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 5 filed the partition suit for dividing the properties amongst the three of them equally. During pendency of the partition suit, a compromise was entered into between the parties as per the compromise, properties were allotted to the three persons i.e. the mother and the two Sons and the schedules were drawn up accordingly before decree could be passed thereof. Respondent No. 5 sold some of the lands to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by registered sale deed. The property transferred by Akhileshwar Prasad Singh was admittedly less than his entitlement, but was a property which was not allotted to him; rather, it was allotted to the petitioner. As per the compromise, consequent to the sale aforesaid by registered sale deed, Court accepted the compromise and passed decree in terms of the compromise. Armed with the decree 2 aforesaid, petitioner approached the Mutation Authorities, who mutated all properties falling to the share of the petitioner, in petitioner’s name, but, so far as, land sold by Akhileshwar Prasad Singh to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is concerned, they were mutated in the name of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and not the petitioner, in whose share land fell. Being aggrieved, appeal was preferred by the petitioner and then a revision to the Collector of the district which was disposed of by the Additional Collector. Petitioner submits that in terms of Section 16 the Revisional Authority is the Collector of the district and as such the Additional Collector could not have disposed of the revisional application. I need not decide this issue because on the facts as admitted above before the decree could be passed by the Civil Court. Respondent No. 5 sold some properties to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, thus, these properties were not available for partition. The decree/compromise had to be amended which was not done in a normal course. The property sold by Akhileshwar Prasad Singh to Respondent No. 5 ought to have allotted the 3 shares to the said respondent in the compromise decree that was not done so long as the sale to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is invalidated by the Court by any competent jurisdiction, petitioner cannot claim mutation in respect of those properties. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 being bona fide purchaser without notice for validly kept full and legitimate title to the property. This application has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)