Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
A.K.RATH
Kishore Kumar Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
Saroj Kumar Mohanty – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
A.K. Rath, J.
This petition challenges the order dated 6.1.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Balasore in Execution Case No.3 of 2011. By the said order, the learned executing court allowed the application filed by the D. Hr and held that the compromise entered into between the parties is unlawful.
2. Since the dispute lies in a narrow compass, it is not necessary to recount in detail the cases of the parties. Suffice it say that opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted Execution Case No.3 of 2011 for partition impleading the petitioner as well as opposite parties 2 to 9 as defendants. The petitioner was defendant no.2 in the suit. The suit was decreed preliminarily on 4.5.2011. The final decree is drawn up on 21.4.2011. Thereafter, D.Hr. levied Execution Case No.3 of 2011. While the matter stood thus, the D. Hr. and J. Dr. no.2 had filed a joint compromise petition on 17.8.2015 in the execution petition to allot a house situate over the suit plot in favour of J. Dr. no.2 since the same was all along in possession of J.Dr.no.2. On
A compromise decree creating new rights in immovable property requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act if it establishes rights for the first time.
Compromise decree comprising immovable property other than which is subject-matter of suit or proceeding requires registration, although any decree or order of a court is exempted from registration. ....
Consent and subsequent conduct of the party can validate a compromise even if the party did not sign the compromise.
An executing court cannot enforce a compromise agreement that modifies a decree or increases liability; enforcement is limited to the original terms of the decree.
Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and others
-
Read summaryBadamo Devi & Ors. vs. Sagar Sharma
-
Read summarySultana Begum vs. Prem Chand Jain
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.