The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise deed, once recorded by the court, is lawful and binding, and a subsequent suit challenging the compromise decree is not maintainable under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The Appellant in the present Appeal is impugning the judgment dated 12.09.2022 ("Impugned Judgment") in CS DJ No.59302/2016 passed by learned ADJ-02, North Rohini Court Complex, Delhi titled as `Smt. Prem Lata v. Sh.Harvinder Singh @ Happy & Ors.'. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 and rejected the plaint of the Appellant under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC being barred by the provisions enumerated under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC.

2. The Trial Court Record is available with this Court. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the appeal may be heard today itself and no date for hearing of the appeal be fixed as contemplated by sub- Rule 1 of Rule 11 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

FACTS GERMANE FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:

3. The property bearing No. 61, Guru Nanak Marg/Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Kewal Park, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property") was purchased and constructed by Shri Hukum Chand and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, who are the parents of the Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Shri Hukum Chand died in the year 1988 and Smt. Shakuntala Devi died in January 2013.

4. It is the case of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that they bonafidely purchased half undivided share each of the suit property for a sale consideration amount of Rs.24,50,000/- each from Respondent Nos.4 and 5 vide registered Sale Deed dated 23.04.2014 having Registration No. 4282, Book No.1, Vol. No. 5109 at pages 148 to 154and vide registered Sale Deed dated 23.04.2014 having Registration No. 4281, Book No.1, Vol. No. 5109 at pages 141 to 147 respectively, both registered on 24.04.2014 with the office of Sub-Registrar VI-A, New Delhi.

5. It is further the case of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that the Appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction (Suit No. 139/2014) against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in respect of the suit property. During the pendency of the said suit, the dispute was compromised between the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. In pursuance of the said compromise, a Settlement deed dated 20.11.2014, receipt dated 20.11.2014 for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and a Declaration dated 20.11.2014 had been executed between the Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and the same was duly witnessed by the sons of the Appellant. It has specifically been mentioned in the above-mentioned declaration that the Appellant has been given Plot No. 128-B measuring 50 sq. yds., Khasra No. 307/202, Village Mukundpur, Abadi Mukundpur Part-II, Delhi - 110042 (hereinafter referred to as the "Mukundpur property") on 26.08.1996 by the mother of the Appellant during her lifetime in lieu of her share in the suit property. Additionally, the Appellant received a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards the settlement amount for arriving at a compromise in the above-mentioned suit and accordingly, the Appellant specifically relinquished all her rights, shares, etc. in the suit property.

6. Based on the said compromise arrived at between the Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 to 5, the Appellant filed an Application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC before the Court of Civil Judge, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi for withdrawal of the said suit. The Appellant appeared before the Court of Civil Judge, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi on 26.11.2014, and the learned Trial Court recorded the statement of the Appellant, which reads as follows:

"I am the Plaintiff in the present Suit. I have entered into a compromise with all the Respondents. The compromise deed is Exhibit PX. It bears my signature at Point A and B. I shall abide by the terms and conditions of the said compromise deed. In view of the compromise deed, I want to withdraw the present suit. I am making this statement voluntarily."

7. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the Appellant, the learned Trial Court was pleased to dispose