JUDGMENT 1. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience. 2. The present appeal is by the plaintiffs. The suit was for a declaration that a compromise decree dated 19-9-1991 in the civil suit in OS 318/1987, was not binding on the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiffs claimed partition and separate possession of a 5/6th share of the suit schedule B property - that had fallen to the share of defendant no.1 in the final decree proceedings in FDP 8/1987 and for other incidental reliefs. 3. The background to the suit is as follows:- The plaintiff no.1 was the wife of Defendant no.1, Subbanna; plaintiffs no.2 and 3 were the sons of Subbanna; defendants no.2 and 3 were the brothers of Subbanna and defendants 4 to 7 were his sisters. Subbanna and his brothers, defendants 2 and 3, were the sons of one Muniyappa and they constituted a Hindu Joint family. Muniyappa, the kartha, died in the year 1952. He left behind him his widow, his three sons and four daughters. The daughters were married and were residing in their respective matrimonial homes. Subanna, had filed a suit for partition against his mother and his brothers, defendants - 2 and 3, in OS 49/1973. The same was decreed. The same was challenged in appeal by the defendants therein. That appeal, in RA 29/1975, was dismissed. In the final decree proceedings that followed, Subbanna and his brothers, i.e., the defendants 2 and 3 in the present suit, had entered into a compromise and a compromise decree was passed, in FDP 8/1987. Thereafter, a suit came to be filed by a married sister of Subbanna, Defendant no.7 in the present suit, had filed suit against Defendants 1 to 3 herein, for partition, in OS 318/1987. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Subbanna, the husband of plaintiff no.1 actively colluded with defendant no.7 and the other defendants in the said suit and entered into a compromise, thereby frittering away the rightful share of the suit property to which the plaintiffs were entitled. In that, by virtue of the compromise decree entered into in suit OS 318/1987, the share of the suit properties allotted to the first defendant in FDP 8/1987 was varied and the female relatives, who were not entitled to any share therein, had been illegally conferred shares. In that, by virtue of the compromise decree entered into in suit OS 318/1987, the share of the suit properties allotted to the first defendant in FDP 8/1987 was varied and the female relatives, who were not entitled to any share therein, had been illegally conferred shares. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 hence claimed 1/3rd share each along with defendant no.1 of the property that was originally allotted to him. 4. Defendant no.1, 3 and 4 to 7, had filed their written statements and contested the suit. Defendant no.8, a purchaser of one of the items of the suit property had impleaded herself as a party to the suit. She was said to have purchased item no. 6 of the suit schedule from the plaintiffs and defendant no.1. The plaintiffs had subsequently deleted item no.6 from the suit schedule. 5. It was the case of the defendant no.1 that he along with the plaintiffs and others did not constitute a Joint Hindu family. He claimed to have separated himself from his father and brothers earlier on and had filed a suit for partition in OS 49/1973, which was decreed. He had admitted the subsequent events but denied that there were any irregularities. The settlement arrived at in OS 318 /1987 was said to be with the full knowledge of the plaintiffs. It was claimed that he had received a substantial sum of Rs.1,40,000/-, which in turn, had been given to the plaintiffs and that they had purchased agricultural lands at Kuruburahalli with the said amount in the name of the first plaintiff. It was asserted that there was no cause of action for the suit. However, Defendant no.1, Subbanna, died during the pendency of this appeal, in the year 2004. 6. Defendant no.3 in turn denied the plaint allegations and supported the compromise decree under challenge. 7. Defendants 4 to 7, asserted that they had been deprived of their legitimate share in the earlier compromise and defendant no.1 had only acknowledged this irregularity in willfully entering into the subsequent compromise which is in accordance with law. On the basis of the above pleadings the trial court had framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and 1st defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the decree passed in O.S.No.318/87 on 19.9.1991 by the Prl. On the basis of the above pleadings the trial court had framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and 1st defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the decree passed in O.S.No.318/87 on 19.9.1991 by the Prl. Civil Judge, Bangalore, Rural District is null and void and not binding on plaintiffs no.1 to 3? 3. Whether the plaintiffs 1 to 3 prove that each one of them are entitled to 5/6th share in plaint "B" Schedule properties? 4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7 from interfering with the plant "B" schedule properties? 5. Whether the plaintiff prove that the defendant no.1 should be restrained from alienating the plaint "B" schedule properties? 6. Whether the third defendant proves that the suit is bad for mis-jonder of defendants 4 to 7 as parties? The court below answered Issues no.1 to 5 in the negative and dismissed the suit. It is that which is under challenge. 8. The appellants have now filed an application seeking to adduce additional evidence in support of their case. It is asserted that the third defendant had denied the case of the plaintiffs in his written statement, but during the cross-examination in the course of his deposition, he had stated that the first defendant had received a sum of Rs.1.40 lakh and in consideration, had relinquished his claim to land in Survey no. 23/2. It was further stated by him that after receiving the said amount the first defendant had purchased property at Kuruburahalli, though this was not a contention taken in the written statement. The trial court has, however, placed reliance on this assertion to dismiss the suit. The trial court has completely overlooked the assertion of PW-1 that the said property at Kuruburahalli had been purchased one year prior to the compromise. The same had been purchased out of funds provided by the maternal grand father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. In order to establish this circumstance the plaintiffs have produced copies of two sale deeds dated 23.1.1990, which they seek should be accepted as additional evidence. It is further urged that the bona fides of the third defendant are suspect. The same had been purchased out of funds provided by the maternal grand father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. In order to establish this circumstance the plaintiffs have produced copies of two sale deeds dated 23.1.1990, which they seek should be accepted as additional evidence. It is further urged that the bona fides of the third defendant are suspect. It is asserted that there was material to demonstrate that the said defendant had played fraud on his sister, defendant no.7, by creating a document which was attributed to her, to illegally claim the purported alienation of one item of property. In this regard, criminal proceedings having been initiated by the said defendant. The case papers pertaining to the said criminal proceedings are also sought to be produced. It is contended that the trial court had erred in accepting that the first defendant was competent to agree to a variance to the earlier compromise by willfully joining in the later compromise in OS 318/1987, to the detriment of the interest of the plaintiffs 2 and 3, when they possessed an equal share in the property so relinquished by defendant no.1. The further finding of the court below that such relinquishment was in consideration of receipt of a substantial sum of money of Rs.1.40 lakh by defendant no.1 and the same had been utilized to purchase other property at Kuruburahalli, in the name of the first plaintiff, though there is material to demonstrate that this was not so, it is contended, has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents seek to justify the judgment of the trial court. 10. In the light of the above and on an examination of the record - the court below has negated the claim of the plaintiffs, having regard to the stand of defendant no.1 and the circumstance that payment of Rs.1.40 lakh to him in terms of the later compromise, justified a lesser extent of land being allotted as his share. There is also a finding that it was admitted by PW.1, one of the plaintiffs, that land had been purchased in Kuruburahalli, the paternal village of the first plaintiff, possibly with the said amount of money received. There is also a finding that it was admitted by PW.1, one of the plaintiffs, that land had been purchased in Kuruburahalli, the paternal village of the first plaintiff, possibly with the said amount of money received. And further, the trial court has opined that it was just and equitable that the female heirs had also been taken into account in the second compromise having been entered into and therefore the earlier compromise having been varied does not result in any illegality or injustice. The trial court has also held that the plaintiffs had acted on the said compromise by alienating an item of land to defendant no.8, which circumstance is not denied. Therefore the trial court has maintained that the suit was misconceived and not maintainable. The reasoning of the trial court cannot be faulted as the plaintiffs had not produced any material to demonstrate that the purchase of land at Kuruburahalli was not out of funds received by defendant no.1 at the compromise. It was not established that the said sale transactions were prior in point of time and may have been with the assistance of the father of the first plaintiff. In this regard the sale deeds, copies of which are produced along with the application now filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be relevant. If the fact that the said purchases were prior in point of time and were unconnected with the compromise entered into in OS 318/1987, it would then require the case of the plaintiffs to be addressed probably on the limited aspect of re-aligning any short fall in the share of land, subject of course to a refund of any amounts received by Subbanna under the compromise, with appropriate interest thereon or such other modality that could be examined on hearing the parties afresh. But firstly, in the opinion of this court, the sale deeds that are now set up by the plaintiffs may have a bearing on the result of the suit. It would hence be necessary to receive the same in evidence of the plaintiffs' case. It could thereafter be examined as to whether there had resulted any inequity in the allotment of the shares, even amongst the female relatives and thereafter to work out the appropriate relief. Consequently, the application in IA.1/2012 is allowed. It would hence be necessary to receive the same in evidence of the plaintiffs' case. It could thereafter be examined as to whether there had resulted any inequity in the allotment of the shares, even amongst the female relatives and thereafter to work out the appropriate relief. Consequently, the application in IA.1/2012 is allowed. The matter is remitted to the trial court in order to enable the plaintiffs to produce the originals of the documents sought to be tendered as evidence and lead such further evidence as may be relevant to explain the documents and the circumstances attendant thereto. The witness or witnesses for the plaintiffs so examined shall be subjected to cross examination, if the other side so desires and the trial court shall thereafter transmit the entire record to this court for a fresh hearing . Ordered accordingly.