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
| 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:
Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Through LR. Smt.Sadhna Rai vs. Rajinder Singh and others
M/s. Sree Surya Developers and Promoters vs. N. Sailesh Prasad and others
Mahila Bajrangi (Dead) Through Lrs. and others vs. Badribai and another
Smt.Sunita and others vs. Rajender Singh and Another 2019(2) PLR 471
Narinder Kumar and another vs. Tilak Raj and others 2002(4) AD (Delhi) 135
Gupreet Singh vs. Chatterbhuj Goel 1991 PLJ 570
Malek Bavaji Amarkhan vs. The heirs of deceased amirkhan Salimkhan and others
Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin
A party may file a suit to enforce a compromise decree when non-compliance is proven, regardless of previous dismissals for the same cause of action.
Compromise decrees are binding unless legally challenged, and mere allegations of fraud do not invalidate established agreements without sufficient proof or a court ruling to the contrary.
Compromise decrees in partition suits involving minors without their inclusion are void and can be challenged based on coercion or lack of lawful procedure.
An appeal against a consent decree is barred under Section 96(3) of the CPC; aggrieved parties must contest the decree's validity in the same court that issued it.
The impugned decree was a consent decree based on a valid compromise inter se siblings, and the appellant was bound by the statement of her counsel. The Court found the impugned decree to be legally ....
(1) No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that compromise on which decree is based was not lawful.(2) Mere clever drafting would not permit plaintiff to make suit maintainable which o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.