A consent decree based on a valid compromise is binding, and appeals against such decrees are barred under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J.

"Sibling harmony is a boon bringing the best but sibling rivalry is a bane bringing the worst."

Former brings happiness but latter brings sadness.

1. The present case, unfortunately, deals with sibling rivalry which has brought to the fore the worst amongst them. There is much acrimony and bad blood between them. The parties to the proceeding are siblings (hereinafter referred as "siblings") born out of the same parents, father-Mr. I.C. Jain and mother-Mrs. Madhurekha Sarin, who expired intestate on 23.01.1987 and 09.05.1999 respectively. Appellant is the sister of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. As per the brief facts of the case set up in the appeal, on 09.01.2008 respondent No.1-brother (since deceased) instituted a suit for partition, rendition of accounts, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction (hereinafter referred as "suit") against the appellant-sister and respondent no.2-brother (since deceased) claiming partition and 1/3rd share of the entire estate of their deceased mother, including property bearing no. B1/23, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as "property").

3. Upon service, respondent no.2 appeared and supported the case of respondent no.1, whereas appellant disputed and claimed ownership of the property on the basis of a photocopy of an alleged Will of their deceased mother in her favour. After completion of pleadings, numerous failed efforts for amicable resolution of disputes between parties through arbitration and mediation and recording of evidence, when the suit was listed for final arguments on 13.08.2019 after more than 11 years for adjudicating validity of the Will claimed to be executed by the deceased mother, learned counsel for appellant sought time to file written note on arguments of 15 pages and accordingly, the suit was adjourned for the next day, i.e. 14.08.2019. Learned Single Judge on 14.08.2019, after recording the terms of compromise inter se the parties through their respective counsels, passed the consent judgment and decree dated 14.08.2019 (hereinafter referred as "impugned decree") holding in the relevant paragraphs as under:

"2. The counsel for the defendant no.1 Rita Wadhwa states that the defendant no.1, for the sake of settlement/compromise, is not pressing the claim under the Will set up by her and is agreeable to partition of the estate of Late Smt. Madhurekha Sarin, with the deceased plaintiff Sanjeev Sarin, defendant no.1 Rita Wadhwa and deceased defendant no.2 Rajiv Sarin getting one-third undivided share therein.

XXXXXXXXXX

4.The counsel for the defendant no.1 has in Court handed over a list of such movables with annexures and the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for defendant no.2 are agreeable to partition also of the said movables as reflected in the said list.

XXXXXXXXXX

6. The counsel for the defendant no.2 has also contended that besides the aforesaid properties, there are other properties also. It is however admitted that no particulars of or evidence with respect to the said other properties has come on record. Though the counsel for the defendant no.1 has contended that since the parties are settling, a provision be made therefor also, but needless to state that the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant no.2 disputes the said other properties or liability thereof for partition.

7. All that can thus be observed is that it will be open to the p