Back
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) – Appellant
Versus
Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. These appeals filed by Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (“the appellant”) assails the judgment dated 28.08.2019 rendered by a Larger Bench of the High Court of Gujarat on a reference arising out of Appeal from Order,1[AO] Nos. 16 and 33 of 2017 and cognate AOs. The High Court concluded that a litigant who was already a party to the suit, but disputes the existence or validity of a compromise recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,2[CPC] must first approach the Trial Court; a First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, it held, is available only to a person who was not on the record of the suit. Following that pronouncement, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed every pending AO on 06.09.2019 for want of maintainability. Both the reference judgment and the consequential order are impugned in these appeals.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the appeal is as follows:
2.1. Three contiguous parcels of non-agricultural land at Siddhpur, District Patan, city survey Nos. 321, 322 and 323, together 36,354 sq. m., originally belonged to Moosabhai Mooman. On his death they devolved on his widow Noorbanu, his sons Sultan and Sha
(1) Compromise decree - A party that accepts compromise is bound by it and cannot appeal - A party that denies compromise must first raise that dispute before Trial Court - A fresh suit is no longer ....
A party aggrieved by a compromise decree has a right to challenge the compromise decree by way of an appeal or to approach the same court which passed such decree by way of an appropriate application....
An appeal against a consent decree is barred under Section 96(3) of the CPC; aggrieved parties must contest the decree's validity in the same court that issued it.
A consent decree obtained through fraud is void, and courts must investigate claims of fraud before accepting the decree as valid.
(1) No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that compromise on which decree is based was not lawful.(2) Mere clever drafting would not permit plaintiff to make suit maintainable which o....
An appeal is not maintainable from a compromise decree under Section 96(3) of CPC, and the compromise decree confers only a right in personam and is not binding on parties who are not part of the com....
A party can appeal against a compromise decree to challenge its validity despite Section 96(3) CPC barring appeals against such decrees.
(1) Breach of compromise – Only remedy available to aggrieved party is to approach court that recorded compromise under proviso to Order 23, Rule 3 of CPC.(2) When there is a statutory remedy availab....
A suit challenging a compromise decree not challenged, but the compromise itself is called into question, would be barred by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. Additionally, a third party,....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
