Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SHAILESH P.BRAHME
Sanjay s/o Damodhar Thorat – Appellant
Versus
Anjanabai w/o Rangnath Thorat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and possession of land involved. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. previous suits and terms of settlement. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. appellants' arguments against the respondent's suit. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. substantial questions of law addressed. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. mediation terms clarified. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. enforcement of compromise decree as a legal remedy. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. suit maintained; limitation issues debated. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 8. final judgment and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT :
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
1. Heard both sides finally with their consent.
2. Appellants have taken exception to the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 2006 which is further confirmed by Lower Appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No.236 of 2008. Appellants are original defendants. Respondent No.1 had filed Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 2006 for declaration and possession. Parties are referred to by their original status in the suit.
3. Respondent is mother-in-law of the appellant/defendant No.3. She had five sons including husband of defendant No.3 Damodhar. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of Damodhar. The subject matter is land Gut N
A party may file a suit to enforce a compromise decree when non-compliance is proven, regardless of previous dismissals for the same cause of action.
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 court affirmed that a compromise decree reached finality and cannot be challenged in subsequent proceedings, establishing the plaintiff's ownership and entitlement to possession.
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....
The plaintiff's failure to execute a compromise decree within the limitation period barred the suit, and evidence provided by a power of attorney holder was insufficient.
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
