Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Moushumi Bhattacharya and M.G. Priyadarsini, JJ.
Boyenepally Srijayavardhan – Appellant
versus
V. Nirupama Reddy – Respondent
A.S.No.19 of 2024
Decided on 10.1.2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXIII Rule 3-A – Bar to Suit – Order XXIII Rule 3A of C.P.C. prohibits filing of a separate suit for setting aside a compromise or consent decree – Bar is peremptory and draws in a third party to compromise decree – Bar to filing of a second suit would necessarily cover a stranger to earlier compromise decree who assails the same either on the ground of failure of consideration, unlawful consideration or fraud – There cannot be any challenge to a consent decree as stipulated under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of C.P.C. – Only remedy available to a party to a consent decree for avoiding the decree is to approach Court which recorded compromise – The party must establish that there was indeed no compromise. (Paras 24, 27 and 29)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 19 – Specific performance of contract – Enforcement of – Relief claimed in a suit for specific performance can, in usual course, be made against parties who claim title to subject property subsequent to filing of Suit – Specific performance of contract may be enforced in such cases against either of parties to contract – Relief for specific performance can also be enforced against a person who is not a party to contract but who claims title through a person who is a party to contract – Claim must be made subsequent to contract against which relief is sought by plaintiff under Section 19 of 1963 Act – Court cannot grant specific performance against a person by compelling him/her to enter into agreement with a third party and seek specific relief against third party. (Paras 31 and 36)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Language of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C is peremptory – Plaint without a cause of action or contrary to law “shall” be rejected – Plaint is the only document for deciding whether plaint should cross threshold of six conditions contemplated in Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C unscathed – Court should read a plaint in its totality for considering application for rejection of plaint and that power can be exercised at any stage of suit – Court must hence be circumspect before rejecting a plaint and must thoroughly enquire into facts and law in this regard. (Paras 43, 44 and 57)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.—The Appeal arises out of an order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the IX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar in I.A.No.162 of 2024 in O.S.No.414 of 2023.
2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the interlocutory application filed by the respondent Nos.1-5/defendant Nos.2-6 (I.A.No.162 of 2024) for rejection of plaint in the Suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff (O.S.No.414 of 2023).
3. The Trial Court was of the view that the plaint was liable to be rejected on the ground that the plaint lacked pleadings as to the maintainability of the relief for directing the defendant Nos.2-6 (the respondent Nos.1-5 in the first Appeal) to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. The Trial Court was also of the view that there was no pleading for justifying specific performance of Agreement of Sale.
4. The relevant facts pleaded by the parties and the views of the Trial Court will be discussed in the later part of this judgment.
5. The appellant filed the Suit against the respondents/defendants for a direction on the defendant Nos.1- 7 to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff or his nominees in respect of the Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and in the alternative, for the Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the defendant No.1 entered into an Agreement of Sale with the appellant/plaintiff on 23.08.2018 for alienating the suit schedule properties on the premise that the properties were acquired by the defendant No.1’s parents through registered Sale Deeds and the defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the said properties. Counsel submits that since the Agreement of Sale dated 23.08.2018 did not stipulate a date for performance of the contract, the appellant issued a legal notice on 18.05.2023 to show that the appellant was ready and willing to perform the contract. Counsel submits that the appellant also called upon the defendant No.1 on 05.06.2023 to execute a registered sale deed, whereupon the appellant was informed of two Suits, namely, O.S.Nos.42 and 43 of 2014, in which the defendant No.1 and the other defendants are parties. The appellant was informed that the said Suits were filed seeking for permanent injunction and the defendant No.1 compromised with the other defendants in the said Suits.
7. Counsel submits that the appellant was therefore constrained to file the present Suit for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 23.08.2018 and for cancellation of the compromise decrees passed in O.S.Nos.42 and 43 of 2014.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1-5/defendant Nos.2-6 in the Suit (O.S.No.414 of 2023)submits that the Suit filed by the appellant is bereft of a cause of action and is also barred by law since a suit for specific performance is not maintainable against third parties who are not parties to the Agreement of Sale which forms the subject matter of the Suit. Counsel submits that these third parties are not claiming any property from the defendant No.1 in the Agreement of Sale. Counsel relies on Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the C.P.C. and on Section 19 of The Specific Relief Act,1963, which bars setting aside of a compromise decree by way of a Suit.
9. Counsel submits that the present Appeal seeking injunction restraining alienation cannot be entertained in view of the fact of the appellant/plaintiff having failed to make out a prima facie case with regard tothe other defendants having derived title to the property from the defendant No.1.
10. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent Nos.1 to 5/defendant Nos.2 to 6.
11. It is relevant to clarify that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the defendant Nos.2 to 6 and respondent No.6 is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.414 of 2023 respectively. The application for rejection of the plaint (I.A.
(1) There cannot be any challenge to a consent decree as stipulated under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of C.P.C.(2) Relief for specific performance can also be enforced against a person who is not a party to....
Specific performance cannot be enforced against parties not privy to the original contract, and suits lacking a cause of action are subject to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
A plaint cannot be rejected if it discloses a cause of action, and non-parties to a compromise decree have the right to challenge its validity.
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....
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....
(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....
Bonafide purchasers without notice of an original agreement can challenge a decree in a separate suit, as the Execution Court cannot adjudicate on the decree's collusiveness.
The reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiffs were not seeking any declaratory relief of title in respect of their entitlement to the suit lands, and therefore, the provisions of Section 34 of the Specifi....
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
