The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise must be entered into by free will and consent, and subsequent retracting of a compromise after it has been duly recorded by the court may be considered contemptuous.

1. Heard counsel for both sides. The Revision Application has been admitted and finally heard with consent of learned counsel for both sides.

2. The Applicant is original Plaintiff. Respondents are legal heirs of original Defendant No.1 Maruti. Respondent No.1C is Legal Heir of Defendant No.1 and also original Defendant No.2. I will refer to the Applicant as Plaintiff and Respondent No.1C as Defendant.

3. The Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.151 of 2007 for partition against her brother Defendant Maruti and his son Defendant No.2 Datta. According to the Applicant-Plaintiff, Defendants prepared a compromise deed and compelled the Plaintiff for her signature on the compromise and the same was filed in the trial Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur at Exhibit 16 on 2nd January, 2008. She did not give free consent to the said compromise. The same was obtained by force. Defendants succeeded in getting decree passed by the trial Court on 7th February, 2008. The same is illegal and improper. Plaintiff had filed Civil Revision Application No.75 of 2008 in the High Court to quash the said order recording compromise on dated 7th February, 2008. By Judgment dated 23rd June, 2009 High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order of the trial Court and remanded the matter directing the trial Court to hear the parties afresh on the point as to whether really there was a compromise between the parties and then to pass appropriate orders.

After the matter was remanded, parties led oral evidence regarding the alleged compromise. Plaintiff brought evidence to claim that the compromise was not willful and the same deserved to be discarded. Defendant brought evidence to prove that there was wilful and lawful compromise. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide order dated 21st December, 2011 held that the allegations of fraud and other grounds are vague and that the compromise which was recorded was by free will and consent and there was no coercion. Accordingly compromise was taken on record and decree passed vide orders dated 21st December, 2011. Thus, the present Revision has been filed.

4. I have heard counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for Applicant-Plaintiff has submitted as follows:

The compromise which was tendered in the Court had been obtained by fraud by the Defendant No.2. Plaintiff filed application that the compromise was fraudulent. The compromise recorded, was only between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.1 was not party to the same. On the same day when the compromise Exhibit 16 was tendered, the Advocate Mr. Sonawane of Plaintiff filed purshis Exhibit 17 withdrawing the suit against Defendant No.1 Maruti. On 2nd January, 2008, order below Exhibit 16 was passed by the Court, the order remained to be passed below Exhibit 1 as on 2nd January, 2008 matter had been taken on board. Before the matter came up on next date, the Plaintiff had filed an application not to record the compromise. Such application Exhibit 19 was filed by the Plaintiff on 14th January, 2008 retracting the earlier compromise.

Reliance was placed by Plaintiff on the matter of Jaywantraj Punamiya and others vs. H. Chokshi & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in (1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases, Page 193 to submit that in that matter there was contingent compromise appointing third person for disposal of the flats in dispute. Court declined to record the said compromise. This was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reliance is also placed on the matter of Santosh vs. Jagat Ram and another, reported in (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases, Page 251, where, in view of the facts of that matter and on appreciating the evidence concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the partition decree fraudulently obtained in subsequent suit filed by appellant therein. Reference was made to the matter of ArjanSingh vs. Punit Ahluwalia and others, reported in 2009(2) Mh. L.J. Page 13. In that matter for one property there were two suits against o