' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- This regular first appeal impugns the judgment and final decree, dated 21-6-2001 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, in a partition suit filed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2. The partition suit relates to property inherited by the plaintiff and the respondents, who are inter se brothers and sisters, from their late father Ali Akbar.
2. At the very outset learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the preliminary decree passed in the case on 29-2-2000 is not under challenge and has attained finality. He has contended, which contention is accepted by learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant did file an appeal against the preliminary decree before the learned District Judge, Sialkot, but the same was unconditionally withdrawn. Even otherwise learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the District Court was the wrong forum for the filing of such appeal because it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter. This contention is also not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. He has, however, asserted that the appellant had already paid a sum of Rs,3,20,000 to his sisters respondents Nos.2 and 4 by way of compromise/settlement of the matter between the appellant and the said respondents Nos.2 and 4. On this basis, he has contended that it was the duty of the learned trial Court to ascertain if such compromise/settlement had, in fact, taken place between the aforesaid parties. In support of this argument learned counsel has referred to the case titled Mirza Iqrar Beg v. M.V. Hanan PLD 1979 Kar.
620.
3. We have gone through the said precedent and note that it is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the alleged compromise/settlement between the appellant and the respondents Nos.2 and 4, was brought to the attention of the learned lower Court which, in our opinion, rightly decided vide its order, dated 22-5-2001 that the same did not have any bearing on the partition suit between the parties because the same was based on inherited tile. It was also held by the learned trial Court, again rightly so, that the agreement itself did not in the eye of law, create any right or title in the suit land in favour of the appellant. The aforesaid order, dated 22-5-2001 passed by the learned lower Court is, therefore, not open to exception. The appellant, however, can assert his rights before a Civil Court, on he basis of his alleged agreement with respondents Nos.2 and 4, subject to law.
4. This appeal, however, for the reasons noted above, is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed.