A compromise decree is binding unless strong evidence of coercion or fraud is presented; the burden of proof lies on the party seeking to invalidate it.

ORDER :

(D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.)

(Prayer : Petitions filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the Fair and Order and Decreetal Order passed in I.A.Nos.13, 441 and 445 of 2017 in O.S.No.80 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni, dated 16.02.2022)

A. The Petitions:

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.02.2022 made in I.A.Nos.13, 441 and 445 of 2017 in O.S.No.80 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni.

1.1 By the above applications, the petitioners herein prayed to recall the compromise decree dated 15.09.2009 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, Section 2(1)(B) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and Chennai City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2003 and Sections 25 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

B. The Factual Background:

2. The factual matrix, in which, the case arises is that one Thangapandian (the original first plaintiff) and others, filed O.S.No.80 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Theni against one R.N.Jegadeesan, N.R.Manivannan, L.Kamalakannan and Theni Allinagaram Municipality. The plaintiffs' case is that the suit property originally belonged to one Shanmuga Vellalakonda Pommu Naicker. The plaintiffs are his legal heirs and the suit properties are in the joint possession and enjoyment. The suit property was originally a thrashing floor. The first defendant is the son of one Narayanasamy Naicker and the defendants 2 and 3 are the paternal grandsons of the said Narayanasamy Naicker. The said Narayanasamy Naicker entered into a lease with the plaintiffs on 29.11.1956 concerning the suit property and the other properties for ten years. The registered lease agreement stated that the period could be extended. The annual rent for the suit property and other properties was fixed at Rs.4,200/-. After the death of the said Narayanasamy Naicker, there is a misunderstanding between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs had to file the suit. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:

“a) to directing the 4th defendant not to receive any papers of receive any amount like payment of tax or other tax inregard to suit property from the defendants 1 to 3 without consent of plaintiffs by way of Mandatory Injunction.

b) to restraining the defendants 1 to 3 not to encumber of any name transfer of suit property in manner of deviating from the Lease Agreement dated 29.11.1956 by way of Permanent Injunction.

c) directing the defendants to pay the cost of this suit to the plaintiffs.

d) and granting such other reliefs according to the circumstances of the suit and thereby render justice.”

2.1 The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing a detailed written statement. They contend that they have perfected title by adverse possession. It is their further contention that as per the lease, the lessees are entitled to put up the superstructure and pursuant thereto, the defendants' father had put up the superstructure. Over some time, the lesser or lessee relationship ceased to exist and the defendants’ family openly asserted title to themselves. With the said contention and the other contentions, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

2.2 Pending the suit, the parties entered into a compromise. The suit property was divided into A and B Schedules. In respect of the part of the suit property falling within schedule A, the defendants agreed that they surrender possession of the property along with the buildings therein to the plaintiffs and will not claim any further right in respect thereof. It was further agreed that the part of the property which is Schedule B will belong to the defendants and the plaintiffs will not claim any further right.

2.3 The trial Court duly examined the parties and after considering that the fourth defendant was given up and as between the parties, there is a valid compromise and after the examination of P.