A court decree founded on a fraudulent compromise lacks validity and is liable to be set aside, emphasizing adherence to Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

These revision petitions have been filed to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S. Nos.101 & 102 of 2022 dated 11.12.2024 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Udumalpet.

2. I have heard Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel for Mr.M.Mahamani, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both these revision petitions, Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for R1, Mr.PA.Sai Govindaraja for Mr.G.Murugan, learned counsel for R2 to R5, Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi for Mr.G.V.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for R6, Mr.A.Anandan, learned Government Advocate for R15 to R17.

3. Brief facts that are necessary to decide the present revision petitions are as follows:-

An extent of 116 acres originally belonged to one Muthusamy Naicker. The said Muthusamy Naicker was blessed with two sons and three daughters. In or about 1988, the three sons, leaving out the two daughters, however, with their mother entered into a registered partition deed. There was a family arrangement in the year 1989 to which the sons are signatories. One of the daughters filed a suit for partition in the year 2010, claiming 1/3^rd share in the mother's share that was allotted under the 1988 partition deed. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the family arrangement had been acted upon in the year 1989. However one of the three daughters got release of 2/3^rd share of other two daughters and thereby, claimed the entire share share allotted to the mother. Subsequently, the said daughter settled the property in favour of her husband, Radhakrishnan, who in turn, sold the property to a third party, from whom the present revision petitioner has purchased the same. One of the daughters filed O.S. No.188 of 2004 for partition claiming that though the suit for partition was dismissed, it had been agreed by the sons that insofar as the property of mother, Rukmani Ammal, even during her lifetime, it was given to her three daughters, the plaintiff and the defendants 3 and 4 in the said suit. This was the stand in fact, taken by the two sons as well while contesting the suit for partition.

4. While matters stood there, the two sons claiming that they had 1/5th share in the property allotted to their mother, Rukmani Ammal, executed sale deeds for 8 acres each, one in favour of brother in law of one of the sons and one in favour of son in law of one of the sons, in all claiming 16 acres to be their property. The purchasers viz., the brother in law and son in law filed suits. There were also several criminal cases between the parties. The first respondent in these revision petitions filed O.S. Nos.101 and 102 of 2022 respectively, for declaring their right in the properties purchased by them from the brothers together with consequential reliefs of permanent injunction.

5. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the said suits filed by the first respondent in these revision petitions respectively, were erroneously decreed by the District Court, based on an alleged settlement terms produced by the plaintiff's Counsel, without even verifying its genuineness and validity. Accordingly, the present revision petitions have been filed challenging the judgment and decree, recording the settlement and decreeing the suit. Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that even a casual perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the Court below would evidence that excepting the learned counsel for the plaintiff, none of the other parties or their respective Counsel were heard or put on notice before recording the alleged settlement. H