The Court's decision emphasized the importance of evidence in proving fraud and misrepresentation and the consequences of raising belated claims in property disputes.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by defendant 2 against the order dated 19-3-1982 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, in F. D. P. No. 18/80 (O. S. No. 192/77) dismissing I. A. Nos. 3 and 5.

( 2 ) THIS is an unfortunate litigation between the brother and the sister over a piece of property left by their father.

( 3 ) ONE Srinivasarao died leaving behind him his widow defendant 1 and two daughters defendant 2 Tara Bai and defendant 3 Shanta Bai and a son Krishnaswamy Rao plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit - O. S. No. 192/77 - for partition and possession of his 5/8th share in the suit property. Later on a joint Memo signed by all the parties and their advocates was filed in the suit on 21-9-1979 stating that the plaintiff Krishnaswamy Rao was entitled to 5/8th share and each of defendants 1 to 3 was entitled to 1/8th share. Accordingly, a preliminary decree in terms of the joint Memo was ordered to be drawn up on 21-9-1979. Thereafter an application for final decree in F. D. P. No. 18/80 was filed by the plaintiff on 16-8-1980. The present revision petitioner-defendant 2 appeared in the decree final proceedings and consented on 13-2-1981 to the appointment of a Commissioner. The Court fixed 18-2-1981 for inspection of the property by the Commissioner. The Commissioner thereafter submitted his report. The Court fixed 6-4-1981 for the objections of the parties, if any, to the Commissioner's report. On that day i. e. 6-4-1981, defendant 2 Tara Bai filed the present Memo/application under S. 151 C. P. C. alleging that the said joint Memo in terms of which a preliminary decree was passed, was vitiated by fraud and that her signature was obtained to that joint Memo by practising fraud or misrepresentation.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff resisted the petition.

( 5 ) THE Court below dismissed the petition IA. No. 3 filed under Sec. 151 C. P. C. The trial Court also dismissed I. A. No. 5 for amendment.

( 6 ) THE trial Court dismissed I. A. No. 3 mainly on the ground that a suit to question a compromise decree was now barred by O. 23 R. 3a C. P. C. and therefore the only remedy open to the party was to file a review application under O. 47 C. P. C. O. 23 R. 3a C. P. C. reads as:-"no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. "the explanation to O. 23 R. 3 C. P. C. reads as :-"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. "an agreement which is vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation is a voidable one. So if any agreement is vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, such an agreement or compromise shall not be lawful within the meaning of Order 23 Rule 3a C. P. C.

( 7 ) IT thus becomes crystal clear that now a suit to question the compromise decree on the ground that it is unlawful is barred. If a suit is barred, can it be said that the party has no right to question the compromise decree either on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation. O. 47 R. 1 C. P. C. reads as :-"application for review of judgment :- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. "therefore in order to invoke the review jurisdiction the following circumstanc