Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
KHATIM REZA
Seema Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
Sudha Devi @ Sudha Verma – Respondent
ORDER :
This Civil Revision application is directed against order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur in Execution Case No. 22 of 2019 by which execution case filed by the petitioners/decree holders for getting possession of the shop in newly constructed building in terms of compromise decree dated 23.09.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 40 of 2016 was dismissed on the ground of its non-executability.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioners were tenants of the opposite parties in a shop measuring 600 sq. ft. bearing Plot No. 179/539 under Khata No. 174 situated in Mohalla-Tilak Maidan Road, Muzaffarpur having the boundaries as follows:—
North- Gali (Lane)
South- Apsara Traders
East- Tilak Maidan
West-House of the opposite parties (defendants/judgment debtors)
2A. The petitioners filed Title Suit No. 40 of 2016 in the Court of learned Munsif, Muzaffarpur (East) against the opposite parties/defendants. The aforesaid suit was filed for permanently restraining the defendants from taking illegal forceful possession over the suit premises in occupation of the plaintiffs/petitioners. The details of the shop is mentioned in Schedule-I of the plaint and for restrain
A compromise decree recognizing pre-existing tenancy rights does not require registration, upholding the right to execute it based on agreed terms under the Civil Procedure Code.
The executing court affirmed that a valid compromise decree must be executed regardless of the landlords' objections, emphasizing the importance of compliance with contractual obligations.
A compromise decree creating a fresh tenancy must comply with statutory provisions governing eviction proceedings; execution of such a decree without adherence to the law is impermissible.
A purely declaratory decree that creates a fresh lease is non-executable; ejectment requires a separate suit per law.
A compromise decree creating new rights in immovable property requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act if it establishes rights for the first time.
(1) Family settlement only declares rights which are already possessed by parties. An aggrieved person can seek enforcement of family settlement in a suit for declaration wherein family members have ....
Compromise deeds creating new rights in property require registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 to be enforceable.
The court upheld the compromise order, finding no evidence of coercion, and directed the respondent to execute a sale deed for the entire property after regularisation.
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
