A compromise recorded by the Court after satisfying itself that it is lawful and that the parties have admitted their signatures cannot be set aside on the ground of fraud or undue influence unless there is evidence to support such allegations.

Headnote:
COMPROMISE - ORDER 23 RULE 3 CPC - COURT ANALYSIS - FRAUD - UNDUE INFLUENCE - DELAY - JURISDICTION - ADOPTION - EVIDENCE ACT SECTION 114 - LAWFUL AGREEMENT - PRESUMPTION - SUMMARY ENQUIRY - VALIDITY OF COMPROMISE - WITNESS -
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit against two defendants claiming possession of the suit lands on the ground that he is the adopted son of deceased Dattram and defendant No. 2, who happens to be the daughter-in-law of defendant No. 1, is denying his title. Defendant No. 1 is the mother of deceased Dattram. Both the defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiff who is the adopted son of deceased Dattram. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and was recorded by the Court. However, defendant No. 1 later filed an application to set aside the compromise alleging fraud and undue influence. The trial Court allowed the application and set aside the compromise.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the trial Court erred in setting aside the compromise. It observed that the compromise was recorded by the Court after satisfying itself that it was lawful and that the parties had admitted their signatures. The Court further held that the defendant's allegations of fraud and undue influence were not supported by any evidence and that the delay of five years in challenging the compromise was also a significant factor. The Court also held that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to review the order of its predecessor recording the compromise.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial Court erred in setting aside the compromise? 2. Whether the compromise was lawful and valid? 3. Whether the defendant's allegations of fraud and undue influence were supported by evidence? 4. Whether the delay of five years in challenging the compromise was a significant factor? 5. Whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to review the order of its predecessor recording the compromise?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the trial Court erred in setting aside the compromise because: - The compromise was recorded by the Court after satisfying itself that it was lawful and that the parties had admitted their signatures. - The defendant's allegations of fraud and undue influence were not supported by any evidence. - The delay of five years in challenging the compromise was also a significant factor. - The trial Court had no jurisdiction to review the order of its predecessor recording the compromise. 2. The Court held that the compromise was lawful and valid because: - It was recorded by the Court after satisfying itself that it was lawful. - The parties had admitted their signatures. - There was no evidence of fraud or undue influence.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the trial Court setting aside the compromise, and directed the trial Court to pass an appropriate order accepting the compromise and making an order in terms of the compromise.

JUDGMENT - S.J. DESHPANDE, J.:---The plaintiff has filed this revision challenging the order dated 30th July, 1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nanded in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1976 by which the learned Judge set aside the record of compromise made by the learned Judge on 28th July, 1976. He further ordered that the suit to proceed according to law.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit against two defendants claiming recovery of possession on the ground that the plaintiff is the adopted son of deceased Dattram and defendant No. 2 who happens to be daughter-in-law of defendant No. 1, is denying his title. Defendant No. 1 is the mother of deceased Dattram. Both the defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiff who is the adopted son of deceased Dattram. It was alleged by the plaintiff that defendant No. 2 falsely claimed to be the wife of deceased Dattram. In fact, she was not related to Dattram at all. Dattram never met defendant No. 2.

3. It was also disclosed by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 had filed a Civil Suit No. 52 of 1974 against defendant No. 2 claiming possession and ownership of certain lands and which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hadgaon. The plaintiff claimed that he alone is the owner and entitled to possession of the lands belongings to deceased Dattram. He also relied on a wall and prayed for a decree of possession of the suit lands. This suit was filed on 14th February, 1976.

4. During the pendency of this suit, on 28th July, 1976, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. The terms of the compromise were reduced to writing. The compromise was filed by the concerned Advocates. It bears the signature of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 has put her thumb mark on the compromise. The summary of the compromise shows that deceased Dattram adopted the present plaintiff on 14-8-1974. As Dattram was suffering from T.B., he was taken to the hospital at Pune for the treatment of that disease, where he died. Before leaving for Pune, the said Dattram had executed a Will dated 22nd August, 1974 in favour of the present plaintiff and by which, he conferred all rights of ownership in regard to the property upon the plaintiff.

5. Paragraph 5 of the terms of the compromise mentions that defendants No. 1 was to remain in possession of Survey No. 76 of Mouza Walki Khurd, Taluka Hadgaon which was one of the properties in dispute, till her life time. The area of this land is 8H. 58 Ars. It was mentioned in the compromise that defendant No. 2 who is not a party to this revision, is falsely claiming to be the wife of deceased Dattram. The said deceased Dattram died on 19-9-1974. Under this compromise, defendant No. 1 agreed and accepted the status of the plaintiff to be the adopted son and also admitted that he will be entitled to the possession of disputed lands. The defendant No. 1 put her thumb mark on this compromise. One Shri A.T. Nalwade, Advocate, also signed on behalf of her. For the plaintiff, his Advocates has also signed and plaintiffs' signature is also found on the compromise.

6. The above compromise was field in the Court and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), made the following order on 28th July, 1976.

"Plaintiff is present. Plaintiff admits his signature. Defendant No. 1 admits her thumb mark. On behalf of defendant No. 1 Mr. Nalawade Advocate is present. Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 admit the contents. Compromise be read and recorded."

Sd/-

Civil Judge S.D. Nanded.

The suit, however, remained pending as no final order of termination was passed.

7. It appears that on 18th June, 1979, the suit was stayed by the order of the Court. However, this order seems to have been set aside at the instance of defendant No. 2 who was on the record and the suit came to be posted at the instance of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 made an application on 8th June, 1981 to set aside the order of stay. The trial Court granted this application and po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis