Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Rameshwar Dass - Petitioner
Versus
Sunder Dev & Ors. - Respondents
CMPMO No. 154 of 2023
Decided On : 02-04-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order 23, Rule 3 - Compromise deed - The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction against the defendant, who claimed title by adverse possession. A compromise deed was executed, but later contested by the plaintiffs. The trial court allowed the plaintiffs' application to withdraw from the compromise, finding it void under the Indian Contract Act. The court ruled that the compromise was not enforceable due to the defendant's failure to withdraw a complaint against the plaintiff. (Paras 3 , 11 , 22 , 24 )
(B) Withdrawal from compromise - A party may withdraw consent to a compromise if justified, and such withdrawal does not necessarily invoke res judicata if no merits were adjudicated. (Paras 21 , 22 )
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership of land and sought to restrain the defendant from interfering. A compromise was reached, but the plaintiffs later sought to withdraw their consent, citing the defendant's continued pursuit of a complaint against one of them. (Paras 3 , 5 , 10 )
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the compromise unenforceable due to the defendant's failure to fulfill reciprocal obligations and allowed the plaintiffs to withdraw their consent. (Paras 11 , 24 )
Issues: The main issues included whether the compromise was valid and whether the plaintiffs could withdraw their consent after previously agreeing to the compromise. (Paras 11 , 21 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a party may withdraw from a compromise if justified, and the absence of a separate application for decree does not invalidate the compromise if the terms are clear and agreed upon. (Paras 22 , 23 )
Result: Petition dismissed; the suit will proceed on its merits.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed orders dated 21.01.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kinnaur District at Reckong Peo in Civil Suit No. 14 of 2015.
2. The respondents herein have filed Civil Suit No. 14 of 2015 on the files of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kannuar. Petitioner herein is the defendant in the said suit. For convenience, the parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status as they hold before the learned trial Court.
3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khata/Khatoni No. 33 min 55, Khasra Nos. 871 and 872, Kitas 2, measuring 0-04-19 hectares situated in Up-Muhal Kupa, Tehsil Sangla, District Kannuar, H.P. (“for short “suit land”) and the name of defendant recorded in the column of possession in the revenue records as “Sathania niwasi Bila Sifat” is null and void. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering in the suit land has also been claimed.
4. The defendant is contesting the suit. His main plank of defence is that the defendant has perfected the title over the suit land by adverse possession.
5. During the pendency of suit, a deed of compromise came to be executed between the plaintiffs and defendant on 01.08.2016. It was agreed by the plaintiffs that they had no objection if the suit land was transferred in the name of defendants on the basis of deed of compromise and that in future the plaintiffs or their legal heirs/successors will have no right to initiate any legal proceedings against the defendant in respect of the suit land. To reciprocate, the defendant agreed to withdraw the complaint filed against plaintiff No.1 Shri Sunder Dev with his employer HPSEB Ltd. and that defendant or his legal heirs/successors would not file any further complaint against plaintiff No.1 before any authority pertaining to the subject matter of the complaint filed with HPSEB. It was also recorded in the deed of compromise that the parties shall pray to the Court to decide the suit as per the compromise deed of the parties.
6. All the parties to the suit appended their signatures on the deed of compromise which was witnessed by two witnesses namely S/Sh. Ravinder Kumar and Om Prakash.
7. The deed of compromise was presented in the Court on 01.08.2016 as Ex. PA. Learned trial Court recorded the statements of the parties and thereafter referred the matter to Lok Adalat which was scheduled to be held on 27.08.2016. Since, Lok Adalat did not assemble on 27.08.2016, the matter was taken up by the learned trial Court on 06.09.2016, on which date plaintiff No.1 filed an application under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short “the Code”) seeking leave of the Court to withdraw from the compromise. It was averred in the application that on inquiry and advice from the elders and from Advocate, plaintiff No.1 had come to know that the comprise was void under Indian Contract Act. Further, the defendant was imposing the condition that plaintiff No.1 was to bear the registration charges necessary for transfer of the suit land in favour of defendant and for such reasons, plaintiff No.1 intended to withdraw his consent for the passing of compromise decree and wanted to pursue the suit in accordance with the established procedure.
8. Defendant filed reply to the aforesaid application on 24.03.2017 inter alia raising objections that plaintiff had no right to resile and the allegations of plaintiff No.1 that defendant was pressing upon the said plaintiff to bear registration charges was incorrect. It was also denied that the compromise between the parties was void. The defendant further admitted to have filed an application against plaintiff No.1 on the basis of true facts which according to defendant was being investigated by the employer of plaintiff No.1. He also submitted that the compromise deed was executed with free
A party may withdraw consent to a compromise if justified, and such withdrawal does not invoke res judicata if no merits were adjudicated.
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.
Second appeals in Punjab and Haryana are treated under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, emphasizing composite appeals for maintaining substantive justice rather than getting dismissed on te....
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
