The court held that a compromise decree can be challenged by non-parties if they demonstrate a legitimate interest affected by the outcome, emphasizing the need for substantiation of such claims.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. 6980/2022 (BY APPLICANT - FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2020)

1. The instant application is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for setting aside the decree passed by this Court consequent to the compromise entered into by the parties to the suit.

2. The present suit was filed seeking, primarily, a declaration that the plaintiff is the son of defendants no. 1 and 2.

3. An examination of the record of the suit indicates that Mr. Rajat Joon, the plaintiff, was the biological son of Mr. Rajinder Singh, defendant no. 1 and Mrs. Gayatri Devi, defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 1 had a brother, namely, late. Mr. Krishna Joon, whose name had been entered as the father of the plaintiff in his school records. He had expired prior to the institution of the suit, but his wife, Mrs. Roshni Joon, was arrayed as defendant no. 3. The present applicant is widow of late Mr. Jayant Joon, who was the elder son of defendants no. 1 and 2, and the brother of the plaintiff. The family tree of the parties is extracted below, for reference:

4. As per the case set up by the plaintiff, he was born on 26.05.1991 out of the wedlock between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. It was his case that due to an inadvertent error, the names of defendant No.3 and her late husband were entered as plaintiff’s parents in the school record.

5. It was further claimed that the plaintiff was never formally adopted by defendant No.3 or her husband. He had always lived with and was raised by defendant Nos.1 and 2. When the plaintiff asked for a share in the family property in 2020, defendant No.1 refused, claiming that he was the son of late Mr. Krishan Joon and defendant no. 3. However, even defendant no. 3 categorically claimed that the plaintiff was not adopted by her. In fact, neither defendant no. 3 nor late Mr. Krishan Joon record the plaintiff to be their son, in their respective Wills.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that despite several requests and the family meetings in May, 2020, the plaintiff was denied any share in the family-property, leaving him with no option except to institute the present civil suit.

7. The record of proceedings indicates that the suit was instituted on 09.06.2020. Defendant No. 1 did not appear before the Court for contesting the suit, while Defendants No. 2 and 3 admitted the plaint averments in their respective written statements. Thereafter, on 23.09.2020, the parties were referred to mediation on a joint request. The parties, thereafter, entered into a settlement agreement dated 14.10.2020 in terms of which, a compromise decree was passed by the Court on 21.10.2020. The terms of the said compromise are as follows:

"i. That Smt. Gaytri Devi, Defendant No.2 and Smt. Roshni Joon, Defendant No.3 have already admitted the averments and claim of the Plaintiff in their written statement stating that Shri Rajat Joon is son of Shri Rajinder Singh Joon and Smt. Gaytri Devi. Shri Rajat Joon is their son and born from the wedlock of Defendant No.l and Defendant No.2.The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are still maintaining their stand and agree that the plaintiff is a son of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and born from their wedlock.

ii. That Shri Rajinder Singh Joon, Defendant No. 1 has also admitted and agreed that Shri Rajat Joon (Plaintiff) is born from his wedlock with Smt. Gaytri Devi (Defendant No. 2) and Shri Rajat Joon always lived with them being their son and averments made by Shri Rajat Joon Plaintiff in the plaintare correct. There was some developments/misunders