A compromise cannot be attacked by allegations of being voidable due to fraud, undue influence, or duress, provided the compromise is lawful and not contrary to law.

Headnote:
Fraud - Partition Suit - Order 23 R.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1903 - A.I.R. 1928 All. 494, A.I.R. 1935 All. 137, A.I.R. 1936 Mad. 347, A.I.R.1950 Mad. 728, A.I.R. 1940 Bom. 60, A.I.R 1952 Cal. 73, A.I.R. 1927 Lahore 546, A.I.R. 1946 Sind. 81, A.I.R. 1956 Bom. 569, A.I.R. 1957 All. 120, A. I. R.1957 Allahabad 450 - The court discussed the interpretation of Order 23 R.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1903 and its application in cases of fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation. The court emphasized that a contract induced by fraudulent conduct is voidable, not absolutely illegal or unlawful. The judgment highlighted that a compromise cannot be attacked by allegations of being voidable due to fraud, undue influence, or duress, provided the compromise is lawful and not contrary to law. The court also noted that the tendency of the law is against multiplicity of proceedings and that the proceedings under Order 23 R.3 are not so summary that an allegation of fraud cannot be investigated. The court ultimately directed the compromise to be recorded and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a suit for partition of properties and a subsequent appeal to the High Court, where the appellants filed a petition to record a compromise. The 3rd plaintiff raised objections to the compromise, alleging fraud by the 1st defendant and the other plaintiffs in obtaining the partition deed.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compromise could not be attacked by allegations of being voidable due to fraud, undue influence, or duress, provided the compromise is lawful and not contrary to law. The court emphasized that the proceedings under Order 23 R.3 are not so summary that an allegation of fraud cannot be investigated.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compromise could be recorded in light of the allegations of fraud and undue influence raised by the 3rd plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a compromise cannot be attacked by allegations of being voidable due to fraud, undue influence, or duress, provided the compromise is lawful and not contrary to law. The court also noted that the proceedings under Order 23 R.3 are not so summary that an allegation of fraud cannot be investigated.
Final Decision: The court directed the compromise to be recorded and dismissed the appeal. The 3rd plaintiff was not prevented from agitating his contentions by a regular suit in a competent court.

Judgment :-

1.O.S. No. 2 of 1950 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry from which A. S. No. 1152 of 1953 (M) arises was a suit for partition of the plaint B and C Schedule properties into four equal shares

among the three plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and for the recovery of possession of the three shares of the three plaintiffs with future mesne profits and costs. The lower court gave a preliminary decree for partition on the lines indicated in the judgment with future mesne profits at a rate to be decided at the time of the final decree and directed the costs to come out of the estate. From the said decision defendants 1 & 2 appealed to the High Court of Madras, impleading the three plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 7 as the respondents in the appeal.

2. On the 28th September 1956 the appellants filed C.M.P. No. 9037 of 1956 (M) before the High Court of Madras and prayed that the court:

"be pleased to record that the suit O. S. No. 2 of 1950, Sub Court, Tellicherry has been compromised as between the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 1st Defendant (Respondents 1 to 3 and 1st appellant in the appeal) and to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn as against the other respondents and in so far as the 2nd petitioner (2nd appellant) is concerned".

In the affidavit filed by the 1st appellant before the High Court of Madras in support of the petition he stated as follows:

"The above appeal is against the preliminary decree for partition passed by the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry in O. S. No. 21950. Pending the above appeal all the members of the family-plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the 1st defendant entered into a compromise and had the properties of the family partitioned. The terms agreed upon between the parties were duly incorporated in a partition deed dated 8-11-1953 and it was registered on 29-2-956. The said deed is filed herewith marked Ext. A In pursuance of the said deed properties have been partitioned and given possession to the respective parties and the plaintiffs filed a petition in the lower court to discharge the Receiver appointed in the suit and the receiver was accordingly discharged on 30-3-1956".

The 1st respondent (1st plaintiff) and the 2nd respondent (2nd plaintiff) also filed affidavits before the High Court of Madras in support of C. M. P. No 9037 of 1956 (M) on 21-3-1957.

3. The 3rd respondent (3rd plaintiff) has raised objections to the recording of the compromise in pursuance of C. M. P. No. 9037 of 1956 (M). According to him he signed the partition deed, Ext A, as the result of a fraud practised upon him by the 1st appellant (1st defendant) and respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs 1 and 2). In his affidavit filed in this court on 18-12-1957 he says:

"After the preliminary decree was passed by the lower court, at the instigation of the 1st defendant, plaintiffs 1 and 2, in whom I had implicit confidence at that time, prevailed upon me to agree to a division of the properties out of court, representing to me that unnecessary expenses could be avoided thereby. At that time, I had no knowledge of the particulars regarding the properties. I agreed to the suggestion made by them of dividing the properties through competent persons provided they were properly valued and my proper share was allotted to me Accordingly, believing the representations made by plaintiffs 1 and 2 that adequate share was allotted to me, I signed the partition deed produced along with this petition.

After I obtained a registration copy of the partition deed on 20-3-1956, I made enquiries regarding the properties and discovered that the 1st defendant had won over plaintiffs 1 and 2 and they fraudulently allotted to themselves much more valuable properties than would fall to their share if properly valued and allotted to me a much smaller share than I am legitimately entitled to"and:

"It is, therefore, just and necessary that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to dismiss the above petition with my costs".

4. Order 23 R.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis