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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1869

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Siri Chand & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ram Gopal & Ors. – Respondents
RSA Nos.407 & 1550 of 1995
Decided On : 05-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Manish Soni, & Mr. Amit Kumar Boken, Mr. Manu K.Bhandari.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Verma.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order 23, Rule 3, and Order 32, Rule 7 - Challenge to compromise decree - Compromise decrees were declared illegal as not binding on rights of plaintiffs - Consent decrees involving minors must be approached through appropriate court - Respondents did not challenge compromise decree before the same court and thus suit was not maintainable - Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment set aside. (Paras 10-12, 14)

(B) Consent Decree - Nature and challenge - Court emphasized that consent decrees based on compromise can only be challenged in the court that passed the decree - Suit for declaration without claiming possession is barred under Specific Relief Act. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Dispute arose concerning agricultural land owned by Rampat, who died issueless, with multiple parties claiming ownership. Compromise decrees challenged by respondents on grounds of being passed while minors, leading to a reversal of earlier judgments. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
Compromise decrees set aside, indicating that respondents should have approached the court passing the decree as stipulated by procedural law. The challenge was not maintainable in another court, and earlier judgments remained intact. (Paras 10-14)

Issues: Legality of minors' consent in compromise, maintainability of suit for the declaration without seeking possession, and whether action of parents was prejudicial. (Paras 9, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that challenges to consent decrees must be made in the court that issued them, noting that minors' interests were adequately represented. The earlier decree regarding land ownership had not been set aside, maintaining the status quo. (Paras 12-14)

Result: Appeals allowed, and the impugned judgment and decree set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of the ongoing litigation. (Para 1)
2. dispute regarding the compromise decrees. (Para 2 , 8)
3. challenge to the validity of the compromise. (Para 4 , 6)
4. consideration of substantive legal questions. (Para 9 , 10 , 12)
5. final ruling and order by the court. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

(Jagmohan Bansal, J.)

By this order, RSA No.407 and 1550 of 1995 which are arising out of common judgment and decree dated 16.12.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa are hereby disposed of. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from RSA No.407 of 1995.

With respect to distribution of land of one relative (Rampat) who died issueless, parties are contesting since 1976 and it is second round of litigation before this court. In RSA No.407 of 1995, there are three appellants namely Siri Chand, Madan and Wazira who are real brothers. In RSA No.1550 of 1995, there are two appellants namely Smt.Biro and Inder Singh. Puran Singh is centre point of litigation because on the one hand there are cousins i.e. Wazira, Madan, Siri Chand of Puran Singh plus brother/sister i.e. Inder Singh & Biro of Puran Singh and on the other hand are his sons namely Angand, Sispal, Jagdish and Ram Gopal.

2. The appellants through instant second appeal are seeking setting aside of judgment and decree dated 16.12.1994 whereby Additional District Judge, Sirsa has reversed judgment and decree dated 12.02.1990 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa and further declared compromise decrees dated 01.05.1980 & 06.08.1985 illegal, null and void and not bindings on the rights of plaintiffs/appellants therein.

3. Before adverting with the issues involved and arguments of both sides, it would be inevitable to look at pedigree of the disputing parties. The pedigree table is reproduced as below:-

Appellants: Siri Chand, Madan, Wazira (in RSA-407 of 1995)

Smt.Biro and Inder Singh @ Inder Ram(in RSA-1550-1995)

Respondents: Angad, Sispal, Jagdish, Ram Gopal, Puran Singh, Inder Singh and Smt.Birro (in RSA-407 of 1995)

Ram Gopal, Jagdish, Siri Chand, Modan, Waziram Sishpal, Angad and Puran Singh @ Puran (in RSA-1550 of 1995)

4. The brief facts emerging from the record and necessary for the adjudication of present appeals are that one person named as Rampat was owner of 170 kanal and 2 marla of agriculture land. He was issueless. He executed Will dated 19.02.1968 with respect to his aforesaid land in favour of Angad, Sispal, Jagdish and Ram Gopal who were sons of his one cousin namely Puran Singh. Inder Singh is real brother and Biro is real sister of Puran Singh. Wazira, Modan, and Siri Chand, children of Dhannu (cousin of Puran Singh) who are appellants in present appeal challenged aforesaid Will by way of a civil suit which came to be decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.1979. Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 19.08.1979, declared aforesaid Will invalid and made appellants herein entitled to half share of the land in question.

An appeal by respondents herein came to be filed before Additional District Judge, Sirsa assailing decree dated 29.08.1979. During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise came to be arrived at between the contesting parties. According to compromise dated 06.08.1980, 62 kanal land came in the share of present appellants. The respondents No.6 and 7 herein were parties to appeal before Appellate Court but were not party to compromise. They preferred RSA No.2330 of 1981 before this Court which came to be allowed vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.1984. This Court upheld the compromise decree, however, remanded the matter to the extent of rights of respondents No.6 and 7. The operative portion of the order dated 29.10.1984 passed by this court reads as:

    "Adverting to the merits of the appeal, I find that the judgment and decree of the trial court could not be displaced on the basis of compromise between some parties. It is not disputed before me that the compromise was arrived at by some of the parties a

      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