Court validates compromise decree in partition suit, dismisses coercion claims, defers undivided property partition. Plaintiffs' rights preserved.

The Court upheld the validity of the compromise decree in a partition suit, finding proper compliance with the law and dismissing objections. Allegations of coercion and undue influence were deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of specific pleadings and supporting evidence. The Court also deferred the decision on partition of undivided properties to a separate pending suit between the parties. The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed with costs, clarifying that the dismissal did not preclude their right to pursue partition in the ongoing suit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the compromise decree under Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Allegations of undue influence and coercion in obtaining the compromise decree.
3. Entitlement to partition of undivided properties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Compromise Decree under Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The plaintiffs contended that the compromise decree from a previous partition suit did not bind them because the sanction of the Court, required under Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was not properly obtained. The Court examined the entries made by the trial judge on 17th and 18th November 1924, which indicated that the judge had granted permission for the compromise, satisfying himself that it was for the minors' benefit. The Court held that there was both a technical and clear compliance with the law, dismissing the objection.

The plaintiffs further argued, based on precedents from the Patna and Allahabad High Courts, that the guardian ad litem must obtain the Court's sanction before beginning negotiations. The Court disagreed, stating that Order 32, Rule 7 must be read as a whole, and the resultant agreement or compromise is not a nullity but voidable at the minor's option. The Court found that the rule was complied with and dismissed this contention.

2. Allegations of Undue Influence and Coercion:
The plaintiffs alleged that their father was coerced into the compromise by threats of death from Firangi Rai. However, the Court noted that these allegations were not separately pleaded with proper particulars as required by Order 6, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court emphasized that in cases of fraud, undue influence, and coercion, full particulars must be set forth, and general allegations are insufficient.

The evidence presented by the plaintiffs was found lacking. Only one witness suggested any threat by Firangi Rai, and this was not corroborated by other witnesses. The Court also considered several facts that negated the claims of undue influence and coercion, such as the involvement of pleaders, the refusal to sign the first draft, reliance on the compromise in subsequent suits, and the absence of any challenge to the compromise by the father during his lifetime. The Court concluded that coercion and undue influence were not proved.

3. Entitlement to Partition of Undivided Properties:
The plaintiffs argued that certain properties remained undivided and sought partition of these properties. The Court noted that it was doubtful whether the plaintiffs sought partition in the current suit or merely a declaration that the compromise decree did not bind them. Since there was a previously instituted suit (No. 29 of 1936) pending between the same parties for the same relief, the Court found it more convenient and proper to have these matters decided in that suit.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs, clarifying that this dismissal did not adjudicate upon their right to seek partition of properties allegedly omitted from the compromise decree in the pending suit. The appeal was thus dismissed.

---