SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Ori) 69

High Court Of Orissa
P. K. Mohanti, J.
CHANDRASEKHAR PATEL - Appellant
Versus
UKIABATI PATEL - Respondent
Civil Revn.  278  Of  1975
Decided On : 09/17/1976

Advocates Appeared:
P.V.Ramdas, S.C.MOHAPATRA, SANKARSAN RATH

Terms of compromise that do not relate to the suit cannot be enforced in execution of the decree, but may be enforced as a contract by a separate suit.

Headnote:

COMPROMISE DECREE - ENFORCEABILITY - TERMS NOT RELATED TO SUIT - PARTITION OF JOINT FAMILY PROPERTIES - CANNOT BE ENFORCED IN EXECUTION - TO BE ENFORCED BY SEPARATE SUIT.

Fact of the Case:

In a suit for maintenance, the parties compromised and agreed to partition the defendant's movable and immovable properties into four equal shares, with the plaintiff getting one share in lieu of her maintenance. The defendant failed to partition the properties within the stipulated period, and the plaintiff filed a petition for appointment of a Commissioner to effect partition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the term of compromise regarding partition of the properties did not relate to the suit and could not be enforced in execution of the compromise decree. The court reasoned that the partition of joint family properties could not be effected behind the back of the other coparceners, and that the term regarding partition was outside the scope of the suit and could only be enforced by a separate suit.

Issues: Whether the term of compromise regarding partition of the properties could be enforced in execution of the compromise decree.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3, C. P. C., which provides that a decree shall be passed in accordance with a lawful agreement of compromise in so far as it relates to the suit. The court held that the term regarding partition did not relate to the suit, as it involved the rights of other coparceners who were not parties to the suit. The court also relied on the decisions of the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts, which have held that terms of compromise that do not relate to the suit cannot be enforced in execution of the decree, but may be enforced as a contract by a separate suit.

Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision and set aside the order of the lower court appointing a Commissioner to effect partition. The court held that the term of compromise regarding partition could only be enforced by a separate suit.

P. K. MOHANTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision arises in the following circumstances:

( 2 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1 is the first wife and opposite parties 2 and 3 are the minor daughters of the petitioner. The opposite parties filed Title Suit No. 64 of 1969 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur claiming future and past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 160/-per month (Rs. 100/- for opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 60/- for opposite parties 2 and 3 ). They also claimed that the immovable properties described in Schedule A of the plaint should foe charged for realisation of the decretal dues. The suit was compromised on the terms that all the movable and immovable properties of the defendant-petitioner should be divided into four equal shares. The defendant and his mother together would take one share, his second wife Padmavati one share, his son radheshyam Patel one share and the plaintiff No. 1 the remaining share to which she would have full title in lieu of her claim for future maintenance. It was also agreed between the parties that within two and half months from the date of compromise the movable and immovable properties of the defendant would be divided and the costs of registration and preparation of map etc. would be borne by the defendant and on defendant's failure to get the properties divided within the stipulated period, the plaintiff No. 1 would get her share partitioned through court by appointment of a Commissioner. As regards past maintenance it was agreed that the defendant-petitioner would deliver 25 pudugs of paddy and Rs. 400/- in cash within 21/2 months from the date of compromise failing which the plaintiffs would be entitled to realise the same by execution.

( 3 ) THE order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the petition of compromise is quoted below:

"i have perused the terms contained in the compromise petition. There are many matters in the petition which do not relate to the subject-matter of the suit. I would therefore record the compromise in so far as they relate to the subject-matter of the suit. The suit is decreed in terms of the compromise in so far as they relate to the suit. The compromise petition in so far as they relate to the claim in the suit do form part of the decree. "

( 4 ) ON 13-3-74 the plaintiffs filed a petition that though defendant No. 1 delivered 25 pudugs of paddy and paid Rs. 400/- in cash towards the arrears of maintenance he had not taken any steps for partition of, the movable and immovable properties within the stipulated period and was avoiding to part with a share of the property to the plaintiffs and was concealing his movables with a view to depriving the plaintiffs of their legitimate claim to a share therein. They prayed for appointment of a Commissioner for preparing an inventory of the movables and for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff No. I. The defendant filed counter contending that the compromise was unlawful inasmuch as the plaintiff No. 1 being the wife could not claim partition from her husband and that the partition of the joint family properties could not 'be effected behind the back of the other coparceners and that these terms do not relate to the suit.

( 5 ) UPON hearing both the parties the learned Subordinate Judge overruled the objections raised by the defendant observing that all the terms of the compromise had been made operative part of the decree and directed for appointment of survey knowing Commissioner for effecting partition. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant has come up in revision.

( 6 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the terms of the compromise regarding partition of movable and immovables are quite foreign to the suit and can only be enforced by a separate suit for partition and not otherwise.

( 7 ) ORDER 23, Rule 3, C. P. C. provides:

"where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement of compromise, or where the def








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top