Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
S.R.Krishna Kumar, C.M.Poonacha
Praveen Annasaheb Gijavani – Appellant
Versus
Appasaheb Bharmappa Gijavani – Respondent
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 1/10th 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
A consent decree, valid under CPC rules, cannot be challenged in independent suits; remedy lies only in the court that recorded the compromise.
Compromise decrees are binding unless legally challenged, and mere allegations of fraud do not invalidate established agreements without sufficient proof or a court ruling to the contrary.
The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC does not apply to a stranger to the compromise, and the plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law to be determined after evidence has been le....
A party cannot challenge a compromise decree through a separate suit due to the restrictions imposed by Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code.
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,....
A suit where a decree based on compromise is not challenged, but compromise itself is called into question, would also be barred by provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC.
Compromise decrees in partition suits involving minors without their inclusion are void and can be challenged based on coercion or lack of lawful procedure.
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
