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

PATNA HIGH COURT
V. Nath, J.
Sateyendra Kumar alias Rajeev Ranjan
and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Most. Shakuntala Kumar Verma
and Ors. —Respondents
C.R. No. 769 of 2011
Decided on 30.11.2011

IMPORTANT POINT
Court by exercising his inherent power can set aside the Compromise decree obtained by Fraud.

Headnote:(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 23, Rule 3—Section 151—Compromise decree—Held—A person who is not party to suit can invoke jurisdiction of court seeking recall of the order rendering compromise decree obtained collusively and fraudulently if same effect vitally his right (Para 12)

       (ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 23, Rule 3—Compromise decree —Obtained by fraud —Power of Court—Held—Court by exercising his inherent power can set aside the decree (Paras15 and 17)

       Result: Revision dismissed.

ORDER

V. Nath, J. —The maintainability of a petition by a third party assailing an order recording compromise between the parties to the suit on the ground of fraud and further the jurisdiction of the Court to recall the said order on the basis of the finding of fraud are the core questions arising for determination in this revision application. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties have been heard at length.

2. Indisputably, the T.P.S.No.112/1986 was filed by the Petitioner No.1 of this revision application as sole plaintiff seeking the relief for partition of his 1/5th share in the suit properties. He impleaded his father, mother and two brothers as defendants and asserted that they were the members of a Hindu Joint Family governed by the Mitakshra law and the suit properties comprising movable and immovable properties were their ancestral joint family properties in which he had got 1/5th share. In this suit a compromise petition was filed by the parties and by order dated 22.5.1987 the learned court below accepted the compromise petition and the suit was decreed in the terms of the said compromise. Thereafter by order dated 15.1.1988 the final decree was also passed.

3. Subsequently a petition under Section 151 and Order 23, Rule 3 CPC was filed by the opposite parties in the suit praying to recall the order dated 22.5.1987 and 15.1.1988 by which the preliminary decree and final decree had been passed on the basis of compromise alleging the said compromise to be unlawful and fraudulent and further praying to restore the suit to its original file and number. The Misc. Case No.4/06 was registered on the basis of this petition and by the impugned order dated 29.6.2010 the learned court below after considering the cases of the parties and the rival evidence has found and held the compromise decree to be vitiated by fraud perpetrated by the parties to the suit, set aside the orders dated 2.5.1987 and 15.1.1988 by which the preliminary and final decree respectively were passed and restored the said T.P.S.No.112/1986 to its original file and number.

4. The relevant case of the Applicants of the Misc. Case No.4/06 (the opposite parties in this revision application) is that the defendant No.1 Chandeshwar Prasad Singh of T.P.S.No.112/1986 had four sons namely Surendra Kumar @ Satyapal Verma, Ashok Kumar, Satyendra Kumar @ Rajeev Ranjan and Ashwini Kumar out of whom Surendra Kumar @ Satyapal Verma died in the year 2004 leaving behind the Applicants who are his widow, two sons and one daughter as his heirs and legal representatives to the estate left by him. It has been further stated that Chandeshwar Prasad Singh also died on 21.8.2006 leaving behind the Applicants also as his heirs and legal representatives besides others and during the Shradh ceremony of Chandeshwar Prasad Singh the applicants came to know for the first time that the entire joint family properties had already been partitioned during the life time of Chandeshwar Prasad Singh by the Court in a suit of the year 1986 itself and the Applicants had now no share in the joint family properties. On enquiry thereafter the Applicants on 13.10.2006 could get the knowledge of the T.P.S.No.112/1986 and the compromise decree passed therein from the Court of Sub Judge II, Patna. It is the case of the Applicants that on inspection of the records of the suit, which was made available to them on 23.10.2006, they came to know that the said suit was filed without impleading Surendra Kumar @ Satyapal Verma and his two sons who were coparceners in the suit properties and a decree on the basis of compromise by the parties to the suit had been obtained. The Applicants claimed that they had definite share in the suit properties mentioned in the schedules of the plaint of T.P.S.No.112/1986 but the parties to the suit by misrepresenting, concealing and suppressing the fact material regarding existence of Surendra Kumar @ Satyapal Verma and his two sons as coparceners


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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