1. Sir since there was decree on account of compromise fresh suit cannot be filed before the court.

2. The court wont accept the fresh petition till on record it is shown that the compromise was on account of force and coercion. 

3. If compromise arived at not completed then it can help them otherwise it wont effect.

4. See if the property was of father they already have a equal share the judgement and amendment was for ancestral property.

5. No sons dont have any right in life of mothers on the property and they cannot file a suit.

1)your suit would be dismissed 

2) compromise decreeis binding upon parties 

3) court would not accept fresh request 

4) it would not be advantage to claim equal share 

5) recent judgment is not applicable in your case as you have accepted compromise decree 

6) sons cannot file fresh suit as they have no share in property during the mother lifetime 

D-1, the eldest daughter of Late Hanumaiah has filed a suit challenging the compromise that was entered into by coercion and threats, in a suit filed by her in 2016, seeking to set aside the compromise decree passed in the suit of the year 2008.This suit pertains to the immovable property of Late Hanumaiah.

Hence it is not necessary for each of the daughters or grandsons to file separate or individual suits seeking partition by metes and bounds of the very same immovable properties or challenge the compromise decree that was entered into in an earlier suit. It would be better to file impleading application/s and participate in the suit filed by D-1 in the year 2016 itself.

All your other questions are inter related hence stand answered on account of the above solution.

1) Yes all daughters can file for fresh suit as the comprise equal share decree not obeyed and implemented among all siblings. 

Seperate Replies according to the questions..

1. Since there is a case pending by D1 where she has challenged the same compromise decree. On that ground ur case will be entertained by the court for a fresh start. However you have an option to join as a party to the same suit of D1 there you will save your expenses and 2 years of period. 

2. To give a clear picture of the compromise decree cannot be challenged in a separate suit. In order to challenge you need to move to the high court challenging decree of trial court on the vary base that a compromise had taken place between the parties but a party has not followed the decree. 

3. Here previous compromise decree is needed to look into however, S1 has the property in his name so in order to follow the compromise order and fulfill your demands they either have to pay a sum or fulfill it by transferiitr another property which might be in their name.  They can not fall into contempt of court order 

4. In order to claim equal share u have to file a fresh case and there if the court finds that matter has already been settled then court will dismiss the matter then and there.

5. Legal heirs have the same right they can file and they can also claim if the property is transferred to S1 heir's. 

For further assistance message again

it is not possible to answer with out going through the compromise agreement and other relevant document. better for you to take proper legal guidelines by showing complete files of your case to an advocate so that you can take a right path to handle your issues. Vague answers will not give you the exact relief. 

Dear Sir,

My anwsers are as follows:

1.        Is there a provision legally for D2 & D3 to file a FRESH SUIT demanding EQUAL SHARE in the entire property (after 10 years of accepting Compromise Decree)?

Ans: Yes, then can file as the properties are still in the name of S1 and it shows the earlier compromise decree never acted upon and it remained as Paper Decree.

2.        Since legally D2 & D3 have signed in person for COMPROMISE Decree, will it be possible for the court to accept D2 & D3’s fresh request?

Ans: though it was signed but such decree never seen the light of a day that is not acted upon and no entries in the revenue office accepted as per such decree.

3.        Since the entire property is still in the name of S1 & UNDIVIDED, will this point be an advantage for D2 & D3 to claim EQUAL SHARE?

Ans: Yes, certainly.

4.        Will recent Judgments for Equal Share for Daughter’s be an added advantage for D2 & D3 to claim EQUAL SHARE in the entire property?

Ans: Yes, definitely.

5.        If at all D2 & D3 cannot file a fresh suit, can their SON’s file in favour of their Mother for EQUAL SHARE stating that their Uncle’s have cheated & threatened their Mother.

Ans: Yes, definitely if D2 and D3 are died.  D2 and D3 or their legal heirs may implead themselves in the suit filed by D1, if still pending. The limitation to file a partition is 12 years.

====================================

LIMITATION 12 YEARS FOR FILING SUIT FOR PARTITION

ARTICLE 106 OF LIMITATION ACT

When suit for partition will become barred by limitation?

Article

106   of   the   Limitation   Act   provides   for   period   of   12   years   limitation   for   a

distributive   share   of   the   property   of   intestate   against   other   person   illegally

charged with the duty of distributing the estate.  Time begins under Article 106

when the legacy and share becomes payable or deliverable.  Under Article 110 of

schedule­I of the Limitation Act, suit has to be filed within 12 years by a person

excluded   from   joint   family   property   to   enforce   a   right   therein   which   time

commences when the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff.  Even if it is the

case of the plaintiff that he was deprived of property of the deceased father by

first defendant is concerned,   Article­106 of schedule­I to the Limitation Act

would be attracted.   Consent award was declared on 15th April 1986.  Decree in

terms of consent award was passed in 1991 whereas suit is filed on 6th  April

2011.  Prayer (b) thus in my view is on the face of it barred by law of limitation.  

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION 

SUIT NO. 808 OF 2011

Naresh Lachmandas Aswani  

V

 Haridas alias Hardas Lachmandas

     CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

    Dated: 18th OCTOBER, 2013

Citation: 2016 (4) ALLMR 286

By an order dated 26th  July, 2012 passed by this court, two issues

were framed under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Notice of

Motion NO. 1157 of 2011.  In view of the issues framed under section  9A of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to be tried as jurisdictional issue, both parties were

given opportunity to lead oral evidence on the jurisdictional issues framed by this

court. Learned counsel have addressed on those issues which are answered by

this court in the later part of the judgment. 

ARTICLE 106 OF LIMITATION ACT MAY BE VIEWED  online.

You would have filed the execution of the settlement deed but you have chosen to file a fresh petition to scrap the settlement deed and a mandate by the court in your favour.

There is nothing wrong in this but you have to wait till you get the decision of the court in the case.