JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—These five appeals by different parties have been filed against judgment and decree dated 18.2.1989 passed by VIIIth A.D.J., Azamgarh in two suits i.e. Original Suit No. 37 of 1981, Sant Bux Singh and others v. Shridhar Singh and others and Original Suit No. 36 of 1982, Sridhar Singh and others v. Sri Narendra Singh and others. Both the suits were consolidated and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The main dispute relates to major part of plot No. 952/2, total area 402 links (karis). This plot belonged to two brothers Kabir Khan and Yar Khan. Aijaz and Niaz are sons of Kabir Khan and Ishtiyak is son of Yar Khan. Kabir Khan and Yar Khan (or their sons) divided the property in equal share in such manner that western portion of 201 links fell in the share of Yar Khan/his son Ishtiyak and eastern half portion of 201 links in the share of Kabir Khan/his sons Aijaz and Niaz. The partition was recognised in O.S. No. 21 of 1975. Aijaz and Niaz sold 70 links of their portion of the aforesaid plot to Sridhar Singh through registered sale-deed dated 21.2.1980 (O.S. No. 37 of 1981 was filed on 3.3.1981). Thereafter, during pendency of the original suit No. 37 of 1981 two more sale-deeds were executed by Niaz. One was executed on 18.8.1981 in favour of Jawahir through which 14 links was sold and other was executed on 24.3.1982 through which 51 links were sold to Sridhar Singh. Ishtiyak had also sold 112 links of his western portion to Patiraji wife of Sridhar Singh through registered sale-deed dated 18.2.1979. Both the suits were filed for permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendants from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs. 3. In the suits Ishtiyak Ahmad, Niaz Ahmad and Badaruddin filed compromise in which they admitted the right of/surrendered their rights in favour of Sant Bux Singh in respect of the eastern portion of 201 links of plot No. 952/2. Under the said compromise Sant Bux Singh had surrendered his claim in respect of other plots in dispute i.e. plot Nos. 950, 953 and 954. 4. Under the said compromise Sant Bux Singh had surrendered his claim in respect of other plots in dispute i.e. plot Nos. 950, 953 and 954. 4. In this regard the Court below very rightly held that as far as sale-deed of 70 links executed by Aijaz and Niaz in favour of Sridhar Singh dated 21.2.1980 was concerned, it was executed before filing of the suit, hence no compromise in respect thereof could be entered into by anyone except Sridhar Singh and similarly sale of 112 Karis in favour of wife of Sridhar Singh through sale-deeds dated 18.2.1979 of the western portion of the said plot by Ishtiyak was beyond the purview of any compromise except by wife of Sridhar Singh. 5. The first compromise which is paper No. 147-A-1 was arrived at between Sant Bux Singh on the one hand and Aijaz Ahmad and Ishtiyak on the other hand on 15.3.1982. Before the said date, Nijaz Ahmad had already sold 28 links to Jawahir on 17.8.1981 and in any case Niaz Ahmad was not party to the compromise dated 15.3.1982. Thereafter on 20.3.1982 another compromise was entered into in between Sant Bux Singh on the one hand and Badaruddin on the other hand which is paper No. 151-A-1 which was almost similar to earlier compromise. In this compromise also Niaz Ahmad was not party. After 4 days of the said compromise i.e. on 24.3.1982 Niaz Ahmad transferred 58 links land out of his share in the said plot to Sridhar Singh and others. Thereafter Niaz Ahmad also entered into compromise with Sant Bux Singh on 2.8.1984 vide paper No. 286-A-1 surrendering his right in eastern portion of plot 952/2. The main thing to be decided is regarding validity and effect of this compromise dated 2.8.1984. A compromise under order XXIII Rule 3, C.P.C. is an admission. Section 18 of Evidence Act defining admission is quoted below : "Admission by party to proceeding or his agent; by suitor in representative character; by party interested in subject matter; by person from whom interest derived.—Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions. Statements made by parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character. Statements made by— (1) persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject- matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested, or (2) persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements." 6. From the above, it is quite clear that Niaz Ahmad could enter into compromise (or admit the claim of Sant Bux Singh) only if it was made during continuance of his interest in the property in dispute. After selling the property in dispute, Niaz Ahmad had no authority to enter into compromise with regard to the sold property. This principle will apply equally to both the types of sales, i.e. sale-deed executed before filing of the suit as well as sale-deeds executed during pendency of suits but prior to the date of compromise i.e. 2.8.1984. 7. A sale-deed executed during pendency of suit is not void. By virtue of Section 52 Transfer of Property Act such sale-deed is subject to the result of the suit. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is quoted below : “Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.—During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order, and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force”. 8. Accordingly, in my opinion, the Court below very rightly held that compromise dated 2.8.1984 entered into in between Niaz Ahmad and Sant Bux Singh could not in the least affect the rights of transferees of Niaz Ahmad prior to the said date. The Court below rightly decreed the suit of Sant Bux Singh on the basis of compromise in respect of that part of eastern portion of plot No. 952/2 which was not sold by Aijaz Ahmad and Niaz Ahmad on 21.2.1980 and by Niaz Ahmad on 18.8.1981 and 24.3.1981. The Court below held that through three compromise deeds filed in the suits Sant Bux Singh became owner of 65 links of eastern portion of plot No. 952/2. 9. The Court below further held that as far as sale-deed dated 21.2.1980 executed by Aijaz Ahmad and Niaz Ahmad in favour of Sridhar Singh transferring 70 links of area was concerned, it was in respect of specific area shown by letters X-1, X-2, G-2, G-1 in the plaint map. It was further held that as far as remaining land of eastern portion of plot No. 952/2 was concerned, it was jointly held by Sant Bux Singh, (on the basis of compromise) and Sridhar Singh and others. 10. Court below has held that parties admitted that about 25 link area of plot No. 952/2 had gone into PWD (road lying towards east). From this fact the Court below rightly inferred that through the sale-deeds of 18.8.1981 and 24.3.1982 excess land had been sold by Niaz Ahmad (more than his share) in the eastern portion of 952/2. Entire eastern portion in the ownership and possession of Aijaz and Niaz was 201 link out of which both of them sold 70 karis to Sridhar Singh on 21.2.1980. Entire eastern portion in the ownership and possession of Aijaz and Niaz was 201 link out of which both of them sold 70 karis to Sridhar Singh on 21.2.1980. Remaining area was, therefore, 131 karis, 25 karis were occupied by PWD. Accordingly, there remained only an area of 106 karis and share of Niaz Ahmad was 53 karis. 11. Ultimately the Court below held that Sridhar was in exclusive possession of 70 links of specified portion bounded by letters X-1, X-2, G-2, G-1 in the plaint map and in the remaining portion of eastern part (except 25 karis occupies by PWD road) Sridhar Singh, Jawahir, Aijaz and thereafter by virtue of compromise with Aijaz, Sant Bux Singh were co-owners and injunction could not be granted against one co-owner to another co-owner. Thereafter Court below determined the share of each co-sharer and held that parties should file suit for partition. As parties were required to file suit for partition hence declaration of share should also have been left to be decided in the partition suit. 12. Sant Bux Singh had also claimed that plot No. 952/2 belonged to him as the old plots i.e. plot Nos. 377, 379 and 381 out of which new plot No. 952/2 was carved out belonged to him. He further pleaded that the original Zamindar of the said plot dedicated the property to Ramdhari Paramhansji through registered Waqf deed dated 20.9.1933 appointing Chandrashekhar Bharti as Mutwalli and after the death of all Mutwallis Thakur Prasad as Mutwalli orally settled the property with Sant Bux Singh and his brother in the month of June,1950 for Rs.100/- per year to be incurred on the Samadhi of Pramhansji. It was also pleaded by Sant Bux Singh that he and others constructed boundary wall on a portion of the above land and possessed the entire land as appurtenant to their house. It was further pleaded that thereafter Ram Tarak Halwai, grand son of Ram Sumiran executed a deed of Memorandum dated 18.3.1980 admitting the settlement. Some further transaction in this regard was also referred to by Sant Bux Singh, i.e. an unregistered deed executed in June 1945 in favour of Sant Bux Singh by Jugal Kishore, Kedar and Pyare Lal. It was further pleaded that thereafter Ram Tarak Halwai, grand son of Ram Sumiran executed a deed of Memorandum dated 18.3.1980 admitting the settlement. Some further transaction in this regard was also referred to by Sant Bux Singh, i.e. an unregistered deed executed in June 1945 in favour of Sant Bux Singh by Jugal Kishore, Kedar and Pyare Lal. However, Aijaz Ahmad, Niaz Ahmad Ishtiyak Ahmad and Badruddin pleaded that all along the land belonged to their ancestors and in the year 1932 they also acquired interest of Ram Sumiran Halwai on the basis of a pre-emption decree passed in O.S. No. 242 of 1932 and 249 of 1932. Sant Bux Singh also claimed his right through Ram Sumiran Halwai. 13. The Court below placed reliance upon comparative table of old and new plots. Court below also exhaustively dealt with other revenue records like Khasras and Khatauni. Copy of mortgage deed dated 1.6.1906 was also considered by the Court below through which Smt. Ram Dei mortgaged part of old plot. Constituting new plot No. 952 to Ram Sumiran Halwai. Thereafter she executed surrender deed in favour of mortgagee on 18.6.1918. Ram Sumiran was Zamindar. Thereafter through decrees of 1932 passed in pre-emption suits (supra) ancestors of Aijaz Ahmad, Niaz Ahmad and Ishtiyak became owners of the plot in dispute. Thereafter Ram Sumiran or his grand son had no right to transfer the said land. The name of the grand son was never mutated in the revenue record after the death of Ram Sumiran. In the Khatauni of 1334 Fasli, Kabir Khan, Sadaruddin and Mohd. Yar Khan ancestors of Aijaz and Niaz and Ishtiyak were recorded even though Ram Sumiran Halwai was alive. In view of all this the Court below very rightly held that Ram Sumiran had no right in the property after the decrees of 1932 and he or his descendants could not transfer the said property in any manner to Sant Bux Singh or any other person. 14. Accordingly, I do not find much error in the impugned judgment. In view of all this the Court below very rightly held that Ram Sumiran had no right in the property after the decrees of 1932 and he or his descendants could not transfer the said property in any manner to Sant Bux Singh or any other person. 14. Accordingly, I do not find much error in the impugned judgment. In my opinion the only thing erroneous is that after holding certain persons to be co-owners of part of eastern portion of plot No. 952/2 (except the portion of 70 karis purchased by Sridhar Singh through sale-deed dated 21.2.1980 and denoted in the plaint map by letters X-1, X-2, G-2, G-1) and refusing relief of injunction on the ground that one co-owner could not seek injunction against another and directing/permitting the parties to institute the suit for partition, it was not proper to determine the extent of the share of the parties. 15. Accordingly, impugned judgments and decrees are modified only to the extent that the property held by Jawahir on the basis of sale-deed dated 18.8.1981 and Sridhar Singh on the basis of sale-deed dated 24.3.1982 shall not be binding upon the parties and in the suit for partition, if filed, shares may be determined afresh on the basis of share of Niaz Ahmad at the time when he executed the two sale-deeds dated 18.8.1981 and 24.3.1982. The other findings of the Court below are confirmed. 16. Appeals are disposed of as above. ————