A consent decree, valid under CPC rules, cannot be challenged in independent suits; remedy lies only in the court that recorded the compromise.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’], by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2021 passed in O.S.No.78/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri, [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’], whereunder, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed as not maintainable by the Trial Court, having answered Preliminary Issue No.1 in the affirmative.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the present appeal is that the plaintiff filed the suit for a relief of declaration, that the compromise decree dated 25.04.1992 passed in O.S.No.99/1992 by the Munsiff Court, Hukkeri as inequitable, unfair, unjust and for reopening the partition as also seeking for fresh partition in the suit properties by awarding 1/10^th share of the plaintiff in the suit properties. It is the case of plaintiff in the suit that the propositus was one Bharmappa Appanna Gijavani. The genealogy of the family of the plaintiff and defendants from their propositus is as under:

4. It is the case of plaintiff that the joint family of plaintiff and defendants headed by the propositus owned the suit properties, and that the propositus personally cultivated the joint family properties and managed the joint family out of the said joint family income. That the propositus, being karta of the joint family, was also running a Kirana (Grocery) shop in one of the suit properties as also purchased a goods truck, which he used to give on hire basis to transport goods and was thus earning a good income from all the said sources. That, from and out of the joint family income, further properties were purchased. That the propositus died in the year 1990-91 and the elder son, namely Appasaheb (defendant No.1), was managing the affairs of the joint family as well as the suit properties. That the father of the plaintiff i.e., Annasaheb (defendant No.2), was mentally retarded, incapable of taking independent decisions and was doing work only under the supervision and directions of others and he used to blindly follow the directions of defendant No.1. That defendant No.1 acquired a dominant position in the joint family. That the plaintiff having attained majority, a few months prior to the suit, after making enquiries realized that, defendant No.1, taking advantage of the situation, appropriated various joint family properties for himself. That defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.99/1992 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and C.J.M., Hukkeri, for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties on 24.04.1992 and on the next day itself, i.e., on 25.04.1992, he took his parents as well as defendant No.2 (Annasaheb) to Hukkeri, by stating that their presence is required for executing power of attorney in his favour for managing the affairs of the joint family properties. That, since his parents and brother were fully depending upon him and his direction, they accompanied him to Hukkeri and affixed their signatures and thumb impression wherever required by the defendant No.1. That defendant No.1 got their signatures on vakalath and compromise petition on 25.04.1992, whereunder, he took half share of the suit properties, although he was entitled to only 1/4^th share. That it was falsely mentioned in the compromise petition that he had given Rs.75,000/- cash to his brother i.e., defendant No.2, when he had no independent income for giving the said amount. That the compromise petition was obtained without the knowledge and consent of his parents and his brother Annasaheb and hence, is not binding on the plaintiff. That defendant No.1 also got executed a registered mortgage deed in respect of the joint family lands in favour of the bank and also under the guise of getting registered mortgage deed, got r