Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Sanjay Kumar, J.
Thoudam Ghanashyam Singh - Appellant
Versus
Thoudam Sunil Singh - Respondent
CRP (C.R.P. Art.227) No. 35 of 2018 and CRP (C.R.P. Art.227) No. 36 of 2018
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Compromise - Property Dispute - Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC - Section 96(3) CPC - Puspa Devi Bhagat (Dead) through LR. Sadhana Rai (Smt.) v. Rajinder Singh and others [(2006) 5 SCC 566] - The judgment discusses the application of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC in a property dispute, the requirement of a written and signed compromise, and the distinction between the first and second parts of the provision. The court held that the Trial Court's disposal of the suit as compromised was unsustainable in law and set it aside. CRP (CRP Art.227) No.35 was allowed, and CRP(CRP Art.227) No.36 of 2018 was disposed of. The suit, OS No.18 of 2016, was restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East, for disposal in accordance with law and due procedure expeditiously.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership of a land and sought eviction of the defendant, mesne profits, and a decree of permanent injunction. The Trial Court disposed of the suit under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC based on an oral settlement between the parties, leading to the defendant's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court's disposal of the suit as compromised was unsustainable in law and was set aside. CRP (CRP Art.227) No.35 was allowed, and CRP(CRP Art.227) No.36 of 2018 was disposed of. The suit, OS No.18 of 2016, was restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East, for disposal in accordance with law and due procedure expeditiously.
Issues: The main issue was the application of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC in the absence of a written and signed compromise in a property dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Trial Court's disposal of the suit as compromised was unsustainable in law and set it aside. The judgment also discussed the requirement of a written and signed compromise, and the distinction between the first and second parts of the provision.
Final Decision: CRP (CRP Art.227) No.35 was allowed, and CRP(CRP Art.227) No.36 of 2018 was disposed of. The suit, OS No.18 of 2016, was restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East, for disposal in accordance with law and due procedure expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
1. OS No.18 of 2016 was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East, for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner and title holder of the suit land by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 02.07.2011. The plaintiff also sought eviction of the defendant from the suit land apart from mesne profits and a decree of permanent injunction. The suit land is the homestead land measuring 0.023 acre covered by CS Dag No.32/863 under Patta No.157(O)/575/1545(A)(New) situated at Village No.27-Wangkhei Nongpok, Porompat Sub-Division, Imphal East District, Manipur.
2. While so, order dated 29.04.2017 was passed in the suit by the Trial Court owing to an amicable oral settlement between the parties. However, the said order was not acted upon in terms of the stipulations therein. Despite the same, the Trial Court disposed of the suit in the light of the said order dated 29.04.2017 under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, vide final order dated 29.03.2018. Aggrieved by these orders, the defendant in the suit is before this Court. He filed CRP(CRP Art.227) No.35 of 2018 against the final order dated 29.03.2018 and CRP(CRP Art.227) No.36 of 2018 against the earlier order dated 29.04.2017 passed in the suit. By order dated 11.06.2018 passed in CRP No.35 of 2018, this Court granted interim stay only in respect of the interest payable @ 6% per month.
3. Heard Mr. N.Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant; and Mr. Th.Ibohal, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.
4. Parties shall be referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the suit.
5. By its earlier order dated 29.04.2017, the Trial Court noted that the parties had come to an amicable settlement to the effect that the defendant would pay a sum of Rs.19 lakh to the plaintiff within six months from that day in full and final settlement of the dispute and the plaintiff agreed that the registered sale deed dated 02.07.2011 executed in his favour by the defendant may be declared as cancelled after full payment of the agreed amount of Rs.19 lakh by the defendant. The Trial Court accordingly ordered that the defendant should pay Rs.19 lakh to the plaintiff through Court within six months and thereupon, the registered sale deed would be declared as cancelled. The Trial Court further ordered that in the event of failure on the part of the defendant to make payment of the said sum of Rs.19 lakh to the plaintiff within six months, then the defendant should pay interest @ 6% per month till full payment. The case was fixed on 29.05.2017 for payment.
6. Admittedly, the defendant paid onlyRs.80,000/- by 28.10.2017, when the span of six months fixed under the aforestated order ended. It appears that the Trial Court continued to adjourn the matter through October, November and December, 2017, to enable the settlement to be acted upon. However, as none appeared before the Trial Court on behalf of the defendant on 19.12.2017, he was set ex parte. The defendant thereupon filed Judicial Misc. Application No.31 of 2018 to set aside the order setting him ex parte. This application was allowed on 22.01.2018. On that day, the defendant sought leave to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as part-payment of the settled amount. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff did not agree thereto, as the time stipulation in terms of the order dated 29.04.2017 had worked itself out. The case was then heard by the Trial Court on 07.03.2018 and pursuant to that hearing, the final order dated 29.03.2018 came to be passed.
7. Therein, the Trial Court noted that the defendant had failed to comply with its order dated 29.04.2017 with regard to paying the sum of Rs.19 lakh within six months, as agreed upon by the parties. The Trial Court then noted that, in terms of the said order, if the payment was not made within the time stipulated, the defendant was to pay interest @ 6% per month till full payment and observed that as the order dated 29.04.2017 was a consensus order, nothing remain
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a written and signed compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC in property disputes, and the distinction between the first and sec....
(1) Compromise of suit – For a valid compromise in a suit there has to be a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by parties which would then require it to be proved to satisfaction of....
(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....
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....
A consent decree requires valid documentation for ownership claims; mere Power of Attorney is insufficient, and allegations of fraud must be substantiated to set aside court decisions.
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....
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
