Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR
Seva Singh S/o Indra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal No.TA/1261/2019 whereby the order passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) dated 15.03.2019 remanding the matter back to learned Assistant Collector, Tibbi has been maintained.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner filed a suit for declaration of his tenancy rights before the learned Assistant Collector, Tibbi under Sections 88 and 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Learned counsel submitted that during pendency of the revenue suit, both the parties had entered into a compromise. On the basis of the written compromise produced before the learned Assistant Collector, Tibbi, the suit was decreed vide order dated 13.02.2012.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.3 against the compromise deed dated 13.02.2012 preferred an appeal before the learned RAA. The appeal was contested by the petitioner on the ground that appeal against the compromise decree passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Tibbi is not mai
A consent decree obtained through fraud is void, and courts must investigate claims of fraud before accepting the decree as valid.
An appeal against a consent decree is barred under Section 96(3) of the CPC; aggrieved parties must contest the decree's validity in the same court that issued it.
An appeal is not maintainable from a compromise decree under Section 96(3) of CPC, and the compromise decree confers only a right in personam and is not binding on parties who are not part of the com....
A party can appeal against a compromise decree to challenge its validity despite Section 96(3) CPC barring appeals against such decrees.
A consent decree obtained by fraud must be challenged in the court that issued it; separate suits for challenge are not maintainable.
(1) Compromise decree - A party that accepts compromise is bound by it and cannot appeal - A party that denies compromise must first raise that dispute before Trial Court - A fresh suit is no longer ....
(1) No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that compromise on which decree is based was not lawful.(2) Mere clever drafting would not permit plaintiff to make suit maintainable which o....
A consent decree obtained through fraud is challengeable by a third party, and such a challenge does not require an independent suit.
A suit challenging a compromise decree not challenged, but the compromise itself is called into question, would be barred by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. Additionally, a third party,....
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
