Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
D.Dash, J.
Santilata Sahoo & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kanchanlata Das & Anr. - Respondents
R.S.A. Nos. 342 and 343 of 2019
Decided On : 13-11-2023
CIVIL PROCEDURE - Partition and Fraud - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100, Section 96, Order-23 Rule-3(A) - The court examined the applicability of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding second appeals and Section 96 concerning first appeals. It also discussed Order-23 Rule-3(A), which prohibits challenging a compromise decree through a separate suit. The court interpreted these provisions to allow the plaintiff to challenge a prior decree obtained through fraud, as she was not a party to that suit. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the defendants to establish the validity of the adoption claim, which they failed to do, leading to the conclusion that the earlier decree was not binding on the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a daughter of late Kalandi and Mala, filed a suit for partition of property after discovering that a previous compromise decree in a partition suit (Title Suit No.515 of 1998) was obtained fraudulently by the defendants, who were her siblings. The defendants claimed the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff had no standing to challenge the earlier decree.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court initially dismissed the suit, citing the bar under Order-23 Rule-3(A) and the issue of limitation. However, the first appellate court found that the earlier decree was obtained through fraud and that the plaintiff, not being a party to the previous suit, could challenge it. The appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, allowing her claim for partition.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3. Whether the earlier decree was obtained by fraud? 4. Whether the plaintiff has a share in the property?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a non-party to a suit can challenge a compromise decree if it was obtained through fraud. The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the validity of the adoption, which was not satisfactorily established by the defendants. The court also clarified that the provisions of Order-23 Rule-3(A) do not apply to the plaintiff's case as she was not a party to the earlier suit.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the defendants were dismissed, affirming the first appellate court's decision to allow the plaintiff's suit for partition.
JUDGMENT
D. Dash, J.
The Appellants, by filing these Appeals, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), have assailed the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2019 & 18.09.2019 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in R.F.A. No.119 of 2018 and the Cross Appeal No.8 of 2018 arising therefrom.
The Respondent No.1 as the Plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.279 of 2012 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar. The suit having been dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable for the reliefs claimed while recording the findings on all other controversial issues in favour of the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff); the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) had carried the Appeal under section 96 of the Code. The Appellants being the Defendant No.1 to 4 had filed the Cross Appeal challenging the findings returned by the Trial Court in favour of the Plaintiff and against them. The First Appellate Court has allowed the Appeal and decreed the suit filed by the Respondent No.1(Plaintiff). Accordingly, the Cross Appeal filed by the Appellants (Defendant No.1 to 4) has been dismissed. The present Second Appeals are at the behest of the aggrieved Defendant Nos.1 to 4 as the Appellants.
2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.
3. Plaintiff's case is that, she, Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.5 are three daughters of late Kalandi and late Mala. Defendant No.2 is the husband of Defendant No.1 whereas Defendant No.3 and 4 are the sons of Defendant No.1 and 2. Defendant No.1 and 2 have two other daughters, namely, Mani & Jhili,
It is stated that the Defendant No.1 to 4 being in collusion with each other in order to grab the suit properties of the parents of the Plaintiff filed a collusive suit i.e. Title Suit No.515 of 1998 for partition of the property of Kalandi and Mala. The suit was filed by the Defendant No.3 as the Plaintiff and Kalandi, Mala, as well as these Defendant No.1, (daughter of Kalandi and Mala), Defendant No.2 (husband of Defendant No.1) and the Defendant No.4 (son of Defendant No.1 and 2) had been arraigned as the Defendants in the said suit. Kalandi and Mala at that point of time were not in good state of health and mind. Defendant No.1 and 2 prevailed upon them and by practising fraud, managed to obtain a compromise decree in the said suit. Although, the Defendant No.3 was never adopted by Kalandi and Mala, yet in the said suit, the Defendant No.3 as the Plaintiff had pleaded that Kalandi and Mala having no male issue, Defendant No.1 (Defendant No.4 therein) is their only daughter and Defendant No.3 is their adopted son. All these were also indicated in the compromise decree. It is stated that in the earlier suit there was deliberate suppression of the fact that Kalandi and Mala had two other daughters, who are the Plaintiff and Defendant No.5. The Defendant No.3 in the previous suit falsely pleaded that on the Dola Purnima day of the year 1980, he was adopted by Kalandi and Mala when in fact, there was no such adoption. The previous suit i.e. Title Suit No.515 of 1998 was decreed on compromise in the absence of the present Plaintiff and Defendant No.5 by practising fraud. Therefore, it is said that said decree is not binding on the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff when went to the house of Defendant No.1 to 4, she was misbehaved and then was told by Defendant No.1 to 4 that she had no share in the property of Kalandi and Mala. The Plaintiff after the death of Kalandi and Mala with her two sisters, Defendant No.1 and 5 claim to be entitled to 1/3rd share each over the suit properties. She, therefore, filed the suit for partition.
4. The Defendant No.1 to 4 in their written statement having raised the issue of limitation standing as the bar for entertainment of the suit in further submitting that the suit filed after 13 years of the passing of
A non-party to a suit can challenge a compromise decree obtained through fraud, and the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the validity of claims that affect the rights of non-parties.
No suit shall lie to set aside compromise a decree on the ground that compromise on which decree is based was not lawful.
A minor can seek partition, but cannot challenge a compromise decree if not a party to it; Lok Adalat awards are binding unless proven otherwise.
Compromise decrees in partition suits involving minors without their inclusion are void and can be challenged based on coercion or lack of lawful procedure.
The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC does not apply to a stranger to the compromise, and the plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law to be determined after evidence has been le....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise deed, once recorded by the court, is lawful and binding, and a subsequent suit challenging the compromise decree is not maintaina....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Central Act 39/2005, which entitles daughters to equal shares in ancestral properties. The court's decision was influenced by ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
