Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
Deepak Agrawal S/o Late Shri Brij Kishor Ji Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
Rekha W/o Shri Dr. Sohanlal Gupta - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 703 of 2025
Decided On : 12-05-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 3 - Compromise decree - Trial Court refused to set aside compromise decree obtained by alleged fraud - Court emphasized the necessity for judicial satisfaction regarding the lawfulness of the compromise before acceptance - Compromise obtained by fraud is voidable and not lawful under the CPC. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
(B) Fraud - Allegation of fraud in obtaining compromise decree must be examined by the Court - Failure to do so leads to miscarriage of justice. (Paras 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, brother of the plaintiff, challenged a compromise decree in a partition suit, alleging it was obtained by fraud, as the sisters had previously relinquished their claims over the property in question. (Paras 1, 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the trial Court failed to determine the lawfulness of the compromise and the allegations of fraud, leading to a miscarriage of justice. (Paras 14, 15)
Issues: The main issues were whether the compromise was obtained by fraud and whether the trial Court properly assessed the lawfulness of the compromise. (Paras 11, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the trial Court must ensure the compromise is lawful and investigate claims of fraud before accepting a compromise decree. (Paras 11, 12, 14)
Result: The impugned order and compromise decree were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the trial Judge for further proceedings.
ORDER :
1. By the impugned order dated 21.9.2024 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 325/2021, the trial Court has refused the prayer of the petitioner to set aside the compromise decree which was said to be obtained by fraud played by parties to the suit.
2. Respondent No.1 herein namely Smt. Rekha had brought Civil Original Suit No. 93/2012, renumbered as 12/2017 for partition of 1/3rd share in the property left by the father of the plaintiff namely Late Brij Kishore Ji Agrawal. The petitioner herein, Deepak Agrawal, is full brother of Rekha and respondent No.2, Kavita Gupta, is full sister of Rekha. The suit was filed against the petitioner and Kavita Gupta.
3. The plaintiff claimed in the suit that father had left three properties which were subject matter of partition. The first one was plot at Residency Road, Jodhpur on which a petrol pump of the family was/is running in the name of M/s. Ganeshi Lal & Sons. The second property was a building alongwith land at Mandore Road in the town of Jodhpur which was/is leased out to Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. The third one was plot at Kishore Bagh, Jodhpur which was already sold.
4. The petitioner and Kavita Gupta filed their separate written statement. Kavita in her written statement stated that when the petitioner was just aged about 22 to 23 years, their father died and both the sisters were unmarried. The petitioner got them married making huge expenses mentioned in the written statement. She further stated that the petitioner spent, on their marriage, more than the property left by the father. The property at Kishore Bagh and Mandore Road were already sold. In spite of that, these properties were included in the partition suit. The property at Kishore Bagh was sold to fulfill the needs of the plaintiff. She further asserted that as on date, neither the plaintiff nor respondent Kavita had any share in the remaining suit property at Residency Road, Jodhpur whereon a petrol pump is running.
5. It is worth to notice here that license for running the petrol pump was issued in favour of the father of the parties, Late Brij Kishore Agrawal, by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur with specific stipulation that the license shall be for installation of petrol pump only and for no other purpose. The licensee will not sub divide the site or construct any dwelling house over it and the petrol pump shall be installed within 3 years. After death of Late Brij Kishore Ji Agrawal on 29.8.1982, the petitioner Deepak Agrawal applied for license. In that matter, plaintiff Rekha Gupta filed affidavit dated 18.8.1998 stating therein that if Deepak Agrawal obtains proprietorship of the said petrol pump, she had no objection nor she would be liable for any loan etc. on the said petrol pump. She further stated that she would not claim any right on the said property. Likewise, Kavita Gupta also filed an affidavit on 7.8.1998 to the effect that she would not claim anything on the property of petrol pump nor she would be liable for any liability standing against the petitioner. Accordingly, on 18.6.2001, the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the petrol pump with enhanced license fee. Later on, Rekha Gupta filed the suit in the year 2012, claiming 1/3rd share over that.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rekha Gupta had not left the claim as mercy, rather, as a deal with the petitioner. The petitioner and his wife had transferred their self acquired property vide H-3 at Pal Road, Jodhpur by gift dated 8.10.1998 to Rekha in lieu of foregoing the claim over the land of petrol pump. Due to pendency of the litigation in Court vide the referred civil suit, the Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. was not ready to renew the license of the petrol pump. In the meantime, the petitioner was undergoing mental agony due to financial crunches. In the circumstance, the sisters agreed for disposal of the suit by a compromise so that license for petrol pump may be rene
A compromise decree obtained by fraud is voidable and requires judicial satisfaction regarding its lawfulness before acceptance under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
Compromise decrees are binding unless legally challenged, and mere allegations of fraud do not invalidate established agreements without sufficient proof or a court ruling to the contrary.
Point of law: Compromise decree - no legally enforceable agreement i.e., compromise on which a decree could have been founded; now that, the decree is voided by the court below and consequently suit ....
Challenges to compromise decrees based on fraud must be made in the court that issued the decree, and such allegations require substantial proof.
Lok Adalat compromise decrees, though final under Section 21, can be set aside in writ jurisdiction if vitiated by fraud like non-service of summons and misrepresentation to illiterate disabled party....
A party cannot challenge the validity of a compromise once executed, especially when affirmed in the presence of legal counsel.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
