Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Iswar Chander Prasad Son of Shri Bhagwan Sah – Appellant
Versus
Sunita Devi Wife of Janak Lal Sah and D/o Late Awadh Narayan Sah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY, J.
1. I have already heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 24.03.1990 passed by the learned sub-ordinate Jude-IV, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 09/87, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case is that the father of the plaintiffs/appellants filed Partition Suit No. 11 of 1980 in the court of Sub-Judge Sitamarhi for partition against his father and brother. The father of the appellants/plaintiffs was respondent no. 7 herein who died and was substituted by respondent nos. 7.1 to 7.3. The father and brother of respondent no. 7 have been impleaded as respondent no. 1 and 2, respectively, in the present appeal. In the partition suit filed by respondent no. 7, a compromise petition was filed on 25-01-1982 and preliminary decree was drawn on 26-05-1982.
4. The plaintiffs/appellants filed Title Suit No. 09 of 1987 to declare the compromise decree dated 26-05-1982 in Title Suit No. 11 of 1980 as illegal, void, and not binding on the plaintiffs/appellants. They also sought relief for declaration that the deed of gift dated 30-01-1984 executed by respondent No. 1 (gra
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) No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that compromise on which decree is based was not lawful.(2) Mere clever drafting would not permit plaintiff to make suit maintainable which o....
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.
The impugned decree was a consent decree based on a valid compromise inter se siblings, and the appellant was bound by the statement of her counsel. The Court found the impugned decree to be legally ....
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.
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
