Back
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Siri Chand – Appellant
Versus
Ram Gopal – Respondent
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 d
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....
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
