Can the validity of a decree passed on a compromise be challenged in a separate suit is the short question that falls for determination in this appeal.-NO


Lower court decreed the suit as prayed- Appeal filed – pending appeal a compromise petition filed – High court allowed the appeal as per the terms of compromise and set aside the lower court decree – I.A. filed stating that the compromise petition and memorandum are not signed by appellant and also filed suit challenging the same – defendant filed Or.7,Rule 11(d) C.P.C. – for rejection of plaint as per the provisions of Order XXIII Rule  3  CPC  and  in  particular Rule 3A which bars a suit to have a  compromise  decree  set  aside  on  the ground that the compromise on which the  decree  had  been  passed  did  not exist or take place– plaint rejected – High court declined to entertain the I.A. filed for setting aside the compromise decree as it was obtained by playing fraud on the court with forged signatures of appellant – Apex court held that it is a settled law that
"3. Compromise of suit. –
Where it is proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the
Court that a suit has  been  adjusted  wholly  or  in  part  by  any  lawful
agreement or compromise [in writing and signed by  the  parties],  or  where
the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole  or  any  part
of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court  shall  order  such  agreement,
compromise or satisfaction to be  recorded,  and  shall  pass  a  decree  in
accordance therewith [so far it relates to the parties to the suit,  whether
or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise, or  satisfaction  is
the same as the subject-matter of the suit]:

[Provided that where it is alleged by one party  and  denied  by  the  other
that an adjustment or satisfaction has been  arrived  at,  the  Court  shall
decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose  of
deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded,  thinks
fit to grant such adjournment.]

Explanation - An agreement or compromise which is  void  or  voidable  under
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 shall not be deemed to be  lawful  within  the
meaning of this rule."
Therefore, the only remedy available to a party to a  consent  decree
to avoid such consent decree, is to approach the court  which  recorded  the
compromise and made a decree in terms of it, and establish  that  there  was
no compromise. In that event, the court which recorded the  compromise  will
itself consider and decide the question as to  whether  there  was  a  valid
compromise or not. This is so  because  a  consent  decree  is  nothing  but
contract between parties superimposed with  the  seal  of  approval  of  the
court. The validity of a consent decree depends wholly on  the  validity  of

the agreement or compromise on which it is made.

Popular posts from this blog

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more