A compromise decree is binding and cannot be indirectly challenged through a new suit without proper legal recourse to set aside the original decree.

ORDER

This civil revision petition is at the instance of the defendants in O.S.No.35 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge at Dharmapuri.

2. O.S.No.35 of 2024 is a suit filed by the respondent (a) for declaration of title;

(b) for declaration that the partition deed executed inter se between the defendants on 14.07.2023 in document No.2588 of 2023 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff;

(c) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule mentioned property in favour of any third party; and (d) for consequential reliefs.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

4. O.S.No.35 of 2024 is a second round of litigation between the parties.

Originally the plaintiff had presented O.S.No.220 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court at Dharmapuri seeking partition of joint family properties into two equal halves and for allotment of the shares in his favour. The defendant in that suit is the father of the first defendant in the present suit namely, one P.Govindan @ Govinda Gounder. Govinda Gounder presented another suit for partition in O.S.No.67 of 1996. The subject matter of the latter suit and the subject matter of the present suit is a Cinema Theatre by name “Sri Palaniyappa Theatre” and the land appurtenant. Due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, both the suits came to be transferred to the file of the Principal District Judge at Dharmapuri and renumbered as O.S.No.101 of 2004 and O.S.No.103 of 2004 respectively.

5. The cases were bound over by the learned Principal District Judge to the file of the Additional District Court at Dharmapuri. After recording evidence in both suits, the learned Additional District Judge decreed both the suits as prayed for on 11.10.2004.

6. Aggrieved by the same, two appeals were preferred before this Court in A.S.No.109 of 2005 by Govinda Gounder and A.S.No.957 of 2005 by the present plaintiff.

7. Pending the appeals, on account of mediation that had been carried on between the parties, a compromise was arrived at between them. Both appeals came to be disposed of by a compromise decree passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.12.2005. In terms of the compromise, there were three schedule – 'A', 'B' & 'C'. A schedule mentioned properties fell to the share of Govinda Gounder and the defendants herein and B schedule mentioned properties fell to the share of plaintiff and his family members. There is no dispute with respect to these two schedules.

8. The Cinema Theater, the subject matter of this suit was denominated as C schedule to the compromise deed. The plaintiff agreed to receive a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the first defendant and the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 2 and 3 to give up his rights over the property. The compromise also records that during the lifetime of the first defendant and his brother, the property will be enjoyed by their father, Govinda Gounder. The compromise also recorded that out of Rs.15,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- had been paid by the first defendant and his brother leaving a balance of Rs.11,00,000/- to be paid on or before 28.02.2006 to the plaintiff.

9. It is the case of the plaintiff that a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- had not been paid and since final decree was not passed in terms of clause 9 of the compromise decree, he became the owner of the property. He would plead that the defendants inter se entered into a partition deed on 14.07.2023, by which they divided the properties, which is the subject matter of the suit. He would state that this document was not registered by the Sub Registrar and therefore, the first defendant had presented a writ petition in W.P.No.6644 of 2023 and had obtained an order for registration and it was only thereafter, the partition deed was registered.

10. The plaintiff would plead that on coming to know about this document, he lodged a police complaint on 10.03.2023 which was countered by the f