Facts:

• The Appellant – Defendant no. 1 was the legal representative and heir of the late Mr. Prafulla Sahoo, son of Mr. Kumar Sahoo.
• The Respondents included Mrs. Charulata Sahoo ( Respondent no 1 - Plaintiff ), daughter of Kumar Sahoo, and the legal representatives and heirs of Mrs. Santilata (Respondent no. 2 - Defendant No. 2 ).
• The case involves a dispute over the partition of ancestral and self-acquired properties of the late Kumar Sahoo. The Original Plaintiff-Respondent no.1 sought a share in these properties.
• The case was filed before the Trial Court, wherein the decision was partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendants.
• Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, Appellant-Defendant no.1 filed an appeal before the High Court.
• While this appeal was pending, a compromise was made between Appellant -Defendant Nos. 1 and Respondent No.2. The Single Judge upheld the compromise and rejected all other claims.
• The decision of the Learned Single judge was appealed before the Division Bench as Letters Patent Appeal (AHO No. 133 of 2000), and a cross-appeal by Defendant No. 2 was also raised.
• The Division Bench dismissed Defendant No. 1's appeal, allowed Defendant No. 2's cross-appeal, and set aside the compromise.
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Divisional Bench, the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
  
  

Background:

Proceeding before the Trial Court

• On 3.12.1980, Respondent No. 1 (Original Plaintiff) filed a suit seeking a 1/3rd share in the properties listed in schedules 'A' to 'F.'
• The Trial Court's preliminary decree on 30.12.1986 classified properties in schedules 'A' to 'F' as ancestral and those in 'J' as self-acquired as self-acquired properties of Late Shri Kumar Sahoo.
• The Trial Court ruled that Respondent No. 1 – Plaintiff and Respondent 2 -Defendant No. 2 were each entitled to a 1/6th share in the ancestral properties and a 1/3rd share in the self-acquired properties and mesne profits.
• In contrast, Appellant- Defendant No. 1 was entitled to a 4/6th share in the ancestral properties and a 1/3rd share in the self-acquired properties, including mesne profits.
  

Proceedings before the High Court of Orissa:

Single Judge Bench (F.A. No. 359 of 1986):

• Aggrieved by the Trial Court's judgment, Defendant No. 1 filed an appeal before the High Court, arguing that all properties of Late Shri Kumar Sahoo should be classified as ancestral. (Paragraph 11)
• While the appeal was pending, Defendant No. 2 settled with Defendant No. 1, relinquishing her share for Rs. 50,000 and portions of land from Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’. (Paragraph 12)
• A compromise petition signed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was filed and registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 643 of 1990 in F.A. No. 359 of 1986.
• The Single Judge, based on compromise, modified the decree of the trial court stating that Appellant- Defendant No. 1 was entitled to Respondent No. 2's share, i.e. a 5/6th share in ancestral properties and a 2/3rd share in self-acquired properties. (Paragraph 13)
  

Divisional Bench

• Appellants - Defendant No. 1 filed a Letters Patent Appeal, contending the Single Judge erred in adjudicating whether specific properties were self-acquired or ancestral, as listed in the plaint's schedule. (Paragraph 14)
• Appellants - Defendant No. 1 appealed to the Division Bench (Appeal No. AHO No. 133 of 2000), arguing that all properties were ancestral and derived from the same nucleus. (Paragraph 15)
• On 28.06.2001, Respondent No. 2- Defendant No. 2 challenged the validity of the settlement deed through a cross-appeal in AHO No. 133 of 2000. (Paragraph 16)
• On 05.05.2011, the Division Bench dismissed Appellant- Defendant No. 1's appeal and allowed Respondent no.2- Defendant No. 2's cross-appeal, invalidating the compromise between the Defendants. (Paragraph 18)
  

Proceedings before the Supreme Court:

• Aggrieved by the decision of the Divisional Bench of the High Court of Orissa, the legal representatives of Late Prafulla Sahoo raised the present appeals seeking reversal of this decision.
• The appeals involved the same parties and interrelated issues from the High Court of Orissa's judgment; hence, they were heard together to ensure consistent judgment and resolve all the related problems. (Paragraphs 1-2)
  
  

Main Issues:

1. Whether the rights of the parties should be governed by the principles established in Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC?
2. Whether the High Court was justified in declaring the settlement between the Appellants and Respondent No. 2 invalid? (Paragraph 42)