The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consent of all parties to the compromise memo is required for its amendment, and the amendment sought must fall within the scope of Section 152 of C.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Case is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 04.10.2013 passed in I.A.No.192 of 2011 in O.S.No.161 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi and allow the present Civil Revision Petition.)

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.161 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramnad is the revision petitioner. The revision petition has been filed challenging the dismissal of an application made by the plaintiff under Sections 151 and 152 of C.P.C for amending the memo of compromise entered into between the parties on 20.11.1985.

(A).Facts leading to the filing of this revision are as follows:

2. The revision petition herein as plaintiff had filed O.S.No161 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramnad at Madurai as against 33 defendants for the following reliefs.

(a)declaring the petitioner/plaintiff as pauper;

(b)directing the defendants to deliver possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff free from any obstruction of the defendants, their agents, men and servants and other persons claiming under them;

(c)passing an order for recovery of future mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession of the suit properties;

(d)directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff thee cost of this action;

(e)and granting the plaintiff such and further reliefs a sthis Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

3. Pending suit, some of the parties to the suit entered into a compromise and filed I.A.No.515 of 1984 to record the said compromise. The compromise memo was signed by the plaintiff, defendants 15 to 17 and one Indirasenai, Suriyapiragasam and Dhanachandirapragasam. The said compromise memo entered into between the plaintiff and some of the defendants was accepted by the Court and a compromise decree came to be passed on 28.10.1985.

4. Clauses 44 and 50 of the said compromise decree are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this civil revision petition are extracted as follows:

“44.That then Chief Principal Trustee of the Charitable Endowments shall get the entire properties of the Suit Trust registered in the name of “Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar Arakkattalai” in the records pertaining to the Revenue and Local Administration Department;

50. That the plaintiff shall take steps to recover possession of the properties omitted herein, but standing in the name of Thiru.U.Muthuramalinga Thevar in official records and to register them in the name of the suit trust;”.

5. As per compromise memo, the plaintiff is the Chief Principal Trustee of the Charitable Endowments and therefore, she was empowered to mutate the revenue records of the suit trust registered in the name of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar Arakkattalai. As per Clause 50, the plaintiff has to take steps to recover possession of the properties omitted herein, but standing in the name of Sri Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar in the official records and to register them in the name of the suit trust.

6. Some of the defendants who were not put on notice about the compromise memo, challenged the same before this Court in CRP.Nos. 2742 and 2743 of 1986 and 635 of 1987. This Hon'ble Court in paragraph No.11 has observed as follows:

“11......It is significant to note that none of the parties to the compromise had challenged the same on any of the grounds contemplated under the Contract Act. It is only the third parties to the compromise who are objecting to the execution of the compromise decree. After all the compromise is an agreement between the parties to the same and the Court merely puts its seal on the agreement and passes a decree in terms of such an agreement. In this view of the matter, it is not possible