Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 3080
DELHI HIGH COURT
V.K.Jain, J.
Santosh Puri - Appellant
Versus
Anil Puri & Anr. - Resopndent
CS(OS) 2338 of 2012
Decided On : 16-10-2012
For the Defendants : None.
An independent suit cannot be filed to challenge a compromise decree based on the ground that the compromise was not lawful, as per Order 23 Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code.
Headnote:
Declaration, Injunction, and Recovery of Money - Civil Procedure Code - Order 23 Rule 3, Rule 3A - The court discussed the terms of a consent judgment and the limitations on challenging a compromise decree. It cited relevant legal provisions and authoritative pronouncements to conclude that an independent suit cannot be filed to set aside a compromise decree based on the ground that the compromise was not lawful. The only remedies available are to approach the court which recorded the compromise or to file an appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that a decree passed by the Civil Judge was null and void, along with injunctions and recovery of money. The decree was based on a compromise agreement between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was not maintainable as per Order 23 Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code. It directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint to delete certain reliefs.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the plaintiff's suit for setting aside a compromise decree based on the ground that the compromise was not lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as per Order 23 Rule 3A, an independent suit cannot be filed to challenge a compromise decree. The only remedies available are to approach the court which recorded the compromise or to file an appeal.
Final Decision: The plaintiff was directed to amend the plaint to delete certain reliefs and file the amended plaint within four weeks.
V.K. Jain, J.—
CS (OS) 2338/2032 and IAs 14118/2012 (O. 39 R. 1& 2, CPC), 14119/2012 (for interim directions), 14120/2012 (condonation of delay)
This is a suit for declaration, injunction and recovery of money. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of Property No. A-2/150, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The aforesaid property was purchased by late Shri Raj Kumar Puri, husband of the plaintiff, who expired on 19.6.1986, leaving the plaintiff, two daughters, namely, Dr. Rita Lingam and Dr. Reena Mohindra and one son defendant No. 1 Anil Puri as his legal heirs. Defendant No. 1 and the daughters of the plaintiff relinquished their share in the suit property in her favour, as a result of which she became its absolute owner. It is alleged that since the defendants had been harassing the plaintiff, she left for Malaysia on 14.11.2001 to stay with her daughter Rita Lingam, but the misbehaviour of the defendants persisted even after the plaintiff returned from Malaysia. She, therefore, left for USA on 1.7.2003 to live with her younger daughter Reena Mohindra and her family. When she returned to India, after five years, she found that the defendants had trespassed into several portions of the property and had also rented out two portions of the said property. Defendant No. 1 filed suit No. 345 of 2008, seeking a decree for cancellation of the relinquishment deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. The daughters of the plaintiff were also impleaded as defendants in that suit. On the matter being referred for mediation, the Counsel for the plaintiff agreed for cancellation of the relinquishment deed and giving 29% of the suit property to defendant No. 1. It was also agreed that the plaintiff would be entitled to 50% of the rent from 1.6.2010, the house would be sold within one year and 71% of the proceedings would go to the plaintiff, whereas the remaining 29% would be retained by defendant No. 1. A decree dated 29.5.2010 was passed in terms of the settlement arrived at during mediation proceedings.
The case of the plaintiff is that the decree dated 29.5.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge is without jurisdiction being barred by limitation since the suit was filed more than three years after execution of the relinquishment deed. In the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the decree dated 29.5.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge is null and void. She is also seeking a mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to remove their goods from the suit property. She has also sought an injunction directing the defendants not to interfere in her physical possession of the suit property. Another relief sought by her is a direction to the defendants to hand over Kisan Vikaspatras, which, according to the plaintiffs, were purchased by them from the rent which belonged to her. She is also claiming recovery of Rs. 27,51,350/- from the defendants.
2. A perusal of the consent judgment dated 29.5.2010 discloses the following terms agreed between the parties before Mediation Cell:
(a) 25% share in the suit property bearing A-2/150, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi would vest in defendant No. 1 Anil Puri and 75% in the plaintiff Santosh Puri.
(b) the relinquishment deed dated 20.3.2001 stands cancelled;
(c) the suit property would be mutated and converted into freehold in the ratio of 25% and 75% in favour of Anil Puri and Santosh Puri respectively and the conversion charges/stamp duty would be paid by them in the same ratio.
(d) the suit property would be sold within one year and on sale Anil Puri shall get 29% of the sale proceeds, whereas Santosh Puri will get 71% for herself as well as for her daughters.
(e) the rent proceeds with effect from 1.6.2010 shall be divided in equal proportions between Santoshi Puri and Anil Puri.
(f) Santoshi Puri will get the ground floor vacated from tenants within six months and in case of non-vacation by the tenants even after 6 months, Anil Puri will get 25% and Santosh Puri will get 75%
