WHAT WAS THE CASE ABOUT?
In the case of Triloki Nath Singh vs Anirudh Singh(D) thr. Lrs. & ors., the question that was addressed by the apex court was, “Whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the proceedings in a separate suit.”
A partition suit was filed in the year 1978 and after the decision of the trial court; the matter went in first appeal and eventually, in the second appeal before the High Court.
Thereafter an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court by Triloki Nath Singh against the order passed by the High Court which stated that the compromise decree dated 15th September, 1994 was illegal, inoperative and obtained by fraud.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The land in dispute originally belonged to Lakhan Singh who died leaving behind three sons, namely, Din Dayal Singh, Jalim Singh and Kunjan Singh.
Din Dayal Singh is said to have died issueless during lifetime of his father, while Jalim Singh died leaving behind a son Ram Nath Singh and two daughters Sampatiya and Soniya. Kunjan Singh is also said to have died issueless but prior to his death he gifted the land of his share to Sampatiya by a gift deed dated 10th July, 1978 which came in possession over her.
Salehari, claimed herself to be the daughter of late Kunjan Singh and filed a partition suit in the Court of Munsif, for setting aside the gift deed in the name of Sampatiya and for partition of her share in the ancestral property. That suit was dismissed and it was held that Salehari was not the daughter of Kunjan Singh and had no rights in the property.
Sampatiya sold a part of the said land to the appellant by a registered sale deed and the appellant was given the possession of the suit. When respondents interfered with the possession of the land it was found that the property was claimed on the strength of a compromise decree entered between Sampatiya and Salehari.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Appellants contended that the said compromise decree was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. Also the salient fact that the compromise was executed between the parties was concealed and is liable to be declared as void. It was also submitted that Order 23 Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to strangers.
Respondents contended that the suit was not maintainable and was hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and Order 23 Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure. It was also urged that the appellants had no right to obtain injunction and it was barred by section 52 of the transfer of property act. Also it was argued that Kunjan Singh didn’t die issueless and Salehari was his sole heir so the gift deed in favour of Sampatiya was never executed.
LEGAL PROVISION: Order 23 Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure states that where the court is satisfied that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or where defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the subject matter of the suit, the court shall order such agreement and pass a decree on whether the subject matter of agreement, compromise, or satisfaction is same as the subject matter of the suit. Where it is alleged by one party and denied by other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived the court shall decide the question and no adjournment shall be granted, unless court thinks fit so to grant it. The provision further explains that the compromise or agreement shall not be deemed to be lawful if it is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
WHAT THE COURT HELD?
The court stated that the substance of Order 23 Rule 3A is to avoid multiplicity of litigations.
Thus, creation of further litigation should never be the basis of a compromise between the parties. In the present case during the pendency of first appeal being continuation of the suit, Sampatiya allegedly entered into a sale deed with the appellant and thus, the issue regarding right, title and interest in respect of the land was still not finally decided.
The scope of Order 23 Rule 3 and 3A was considered by the court and it was held that, “Order 23 Rule 3A clearly bars a suit which the decree is based were not lawful. This implies that no sooner a question relating to lawfulness of the agreement or compromise is raised before the court that passed the decree on the basis of any such agreement or compromise, it’s that court and that court alone who can examine and determine that question. The court cannot direct the parties to file a separate suit on the subject for no such suit will lie inview of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3A CPC to set aside a
decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree was based was not lawful.”
The appellant was not a party to the compromise decree but claimed a right, title and interest over the land referred. Now, the appellant cannot be allowed to question the compromise decree passed by the High Court in the partition suit.
It was also observed by the Supreme Court that the suit was instituted in the year 1995 and after 25 years the court of appeal cannot interfere with the issue of right, title and interest of the suit property.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
– DEEKSHA CHUGH
Deeksha Chugh 