Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
Siddappa Gurusiddappa Dandin –Appellant
Versus
Gadigeppa Allappa Hulikatti – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1071 of 2010 & Civil Revision Petition No. 1073 of 2010 (Eat)
Decided on : 05-02-2024
Compromise - Civil Procedure - Order XXIII Rule 3, Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure - 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 satisfied the plaintiff in respect to 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 as 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 not 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 (9 of 1872), shall not he deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.]
Fact of the Case:
The original suits sought declaration that plaintiffs are the owners of suit properties and for consequential relief of injunction. The suits ended in a compromise, but the defendants later filed applications seeking recall of compromise decree on the ground of fraud. The trial Judge allowed the applications, setting aside the compromise decree and restoring the suits for hearing on merits.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the compromise was not duly entered into, as the defendants were illiterate and were made to believe that the compromise was in respect of different land than what was actually incorporated in the compromise petition. The Court held that the trial Judge rightly exercised the power vested in him in recalling the compromise decree and setting aside the compromise.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the compromise decree, the understanding of the terms of compromise by the illiterate defendants, and the duty of the Court to explain the contents and consequences of the compromise before accepting it.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the responsibility of the judge to ensure that parties understand the terms of compromise before accepting it, especially when the parties are illiterate. The Court held that the trial Judge rightly set aside the compromise decree as there was no satisfaction entered by the trial Judge who accepted the compromise petition.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision petitions were dismissed, and the Court ordered the parties to appear before the trial Court for further proceedings.
ORDER :
Heard Smt.Pallavi Pachhapure on behalf of Sri.F.V.Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Sangram S Kulkarni and Sri.V.R.Datar, learned counsels for respondents.
2. Though this matter is listed before the Court as CRP No.1071/2010, material on record would go to show that since two orders were challenged it has been mentioned as two different numbers as CRP No.1071/2010 and CRP No.1073/2010. Hence, both the revision petitions are taken up for disposal.
3. Present revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed in Misc. No.43/1998 and Misc. No.26/2002 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak dated 21.12.2009.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
4.1 Original Suits in O.S.No.60/1994 and O.S.No.61/1994 were filed seeking declaration that plaintiffs are the owners of suit properties and for consequential relief of injunction.
4.2 Suits were ended in a compromise by filing an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in both the suits. Said compromise was accepted by the learned trial Judge.
4.3 After lapse of sufficient time, in the year 1998 and in the year 2002, defendants filed applications seeking recall of compromise decree on the ground that fraud has been played and they were not made known about the contents of the compromise petition and sought for setting aside the compromise decree with a prayer to restore the suits and permit the defendants to contest the suits on merits.
4.4 Those applications were numbered as Misc. No.43/1998 and Misc. No.26/2002. Both the applications were contested. By order dated 21.12.2009, both the applications came to be allowed holding that there are sufficient reasons to recall the compromise decree.
4.5 Before passing the order on 21.12.2009, enquiry was held on the applications and parties have also placed their evidence.
4.6 Defendants who wanted the compromise decree to be set aside, made a specific allegation that their advocate did not properly explain the contents of the compromise petition and parties were under the impression that compromise is being entered into in respect of land in revenue Sy.No.245/5 of Pamaldinni village of Gokak taluk. But actual compromise was in respect of land in revenue Sy.No.245/6A and 245/6B. Therefore, the learned trial Judge recorded a specific finding in paragraphs No.15 and 16 of the impugned order as under:
The judgment emphasizes the responsibility of the Court to ensure that parties, especially illiterate ones, understand the terms and consequences of a compromise before accepting it.
A court decree founded on a fraudulent compromise lacks validity and is liable to be set aside, emphasizing adherence to Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.
A judgment obtained by fraud or collusion does not operate as res judicata and is not binding on the parties to the proceedings. Such a judgment can be avoided in subsequent proceedings by a party ab....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consent of all parties to the compromise memo is required for its amendment, and the amendment sought must fall within the scope of Sectio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC should be allowed only if it is necessary to determine the real issue in controve....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise deed, once recorded by the court, is lawful and binding, and a subsequent suit challenging the compromise decree is not maintaina....
When they are not shown to be in any manner perverse, illogical and irrational, resultantly, the substantial questions of law formulated are accordingly answered infavour of the plaintiff and against....
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
