Back
KHATIM REZA
Jagdish Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Manmati Devi – Respondent
Khatim Reza, J. – Heard Mr. Lakmesh Marvind, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. This Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in Miscellaneous Case No. 01/2007/15/2017 (for brevity 'learned court below') whereby the learned court below rejected the petition dated 06.11.2007 filed by the petitioners under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity ‘CPC’) for setting aside the decree passed on the basis of compromise in Title Appeal No. 37/1999/30/2003 by the 5th Additional District Judge, Aurangabad whereby a compromise was entered into and a decree was drawn after accepting the compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC.
3. The brief factual background of the case is that the plaintiff/opposite party No.2, namely, Rekha Mahto (husband of opposite party no.1) filed Title Partition Suit No. 22/1993/100/ 1994 for carving out of 1/5 share in the suit property given in schedule-A of the plaint by appointment of Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner. The said partition suit
The judgment emphasizes the responsibility of the Court to ensure that parties, especially illiterate ones, understand the terms and consequences of a compromise before accepting it.
A judgment obtained by fraud or collusion does not operate as res judicata and is not binding on the parties to the proceedings. Such a judgment can be avoided in subsequent proceedings by a party ab....
Compromise decrees in partition suits involving minors without their inclusion are void and can be challenged based on coercion or lack of lawful procedure.
(1) Breach of compromise – Only remedy available to aggrieved party is to approach court that recorded compromise under proviso to Order 23, Rule 3 of CPC.(2) When there is a statutory remedy availab....
In partition suits, a compromise among co-owners is valid even in the presence of third-party claims, provided it does not extinguish their rights.
A party can appeal against a compromise decree to challenge its validity despite Section 96(3) CPC barring appeals against such decrees.
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
