IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19667 of 2010 SMT. DHANI DEVI . Versus SHRI RAM RATAN SINGH & ORS . ----------- 7 9.12.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner who was arrayed as defendant no.5 in Partition Suit No.4 of 2003 has filed the instant writ application against the order dated 8.2.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Judge IInd, Muzaffarpur in Partition Suit No.4 of 2003 whereby he rejected the objection dated 26.12.2006 filed by the petitioner against the collusive compromise dated 23.11.2006 entered between the plaintiff-Respondent 1st set and the defendants 1st and 2nd sets, who are Respondents second and third sets herein. It appears that plaintiff-Respondent no.1 filed a suit bearing No.4 of 2003 for partition and also for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 4.1.2002 executed by Ram Ekbal Singh, defendant no.1(Respondent No.2 in this writ) in favour of his wife Dhano Devi, defendant no.5, be declared as illegal, void and ineffective. The defendants appeared and filed written statement. Thereafter the parties including this petitioner filed a compromise and prayed for recording a decree in terms of the same. The petitioner made objection to the compromise. The petitioner states that defendant no.1 cannot enter into a compromise with the plaintiff and other defendants in respect of the land which he has executed in her favour. It is submitted that the compromise dated 2 23.11.2006 cannot be accepted unless purchased land of the petitioner be given in the share of her vendor namely Ram Ekbal Singh, defendant no.1 in the suit. The trial court observed that this was a suit for partition of the joint family property and as such till there is partition the purchaser only gets interest in the joint family property to the extent of land executed in his favour and not an interest over a specific piece of land. Counsel for the respondents submits that defendant no.1 could not have executed sale deed in respect of any specific piece of property in favour of the petitioner and as such sale deed in favour of the petitioner is a nullity. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that there cannot be any dispute to the observation made by the trial court that a purchaser of a joint undivided Hindu property would only get an interest in respect of respective share and the coparcener/co-sharer would not be entitled to execute any specific portion of land in favour of any person but at the most he can transfer only an interest in respect of his share. However, in the instant case, the defendant no.1 after transferring the land in favour of the petitioner through compromise deed with others without consent of petitioner agreed to apportion that specific portion of land in favour of others, which is not permissible in law. Though a purchaser would only be entitled to interest in respect of share of the person transferring his land, the vendor who has transferred any specific piece of land in 3 favour of such vendee is stopped from bartering or apportioning of that piece of land to other co-sharer on principle of estoppel enshrined in section 115 of the Evidence Act, which is quoted herein: “115. Estoppel – When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.” The vendor by selling a separate piece of land to the petitioner has thus divested himself of a right to make any subsequent negotiation in respect of it. Such transaction by a –co- sharer without partition in joint Hindu family may not bind or affect the right, title or interest of other co-sharers, but it would certainly operate as estoppel against the person making it against entering into further transaction, transfer or settlement in respect to it. In the facts of the case, the equity weighs in favour of the petitioner/purchaser and as such any compromise entered in respect of such land by defendant no.1/Respondent no.2 which he has already sold to the petitioner would not be valid. In the result, it is held that the compromise of the suit with regard to the land sold by defendant no. 1 to the defendant no.5 cannot be subject matter of compromise petition and no compromise decree can be passed in this regard. The suit will 4 KHAN proceed so far the adjudication to the sale deed in favour of defendant no.5 is concerned and it may be decided on the basis of the pleading of the parties and the evidence to be led by them. The impugned order dated 8.2.2007 passed in Partition Suit No.4 of 2003 by the Sub-Judge IInd, Muzaffarpur rejecting objection of the petitioner is set aside to the extent indicated above. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (S.P.Singh,J)