An out-of-court settlement between the parties to a specific performance suit, entered into after the decree was passed, does not nullify the decree and cannot be a ground for review of the execution proceedings.

Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT - EFFECT - [The court held that an out-of-court settlement between the parties to a specific performance suit, entered into after the decree was passed, does not nullify the decree and cannot be a ground for review of the execution proceedings.]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner and the respondent entered into a sale agreement for the sale of the petitioner's property. The petitioner later refused to perform his part of the contract, and the respondent filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed in his favor. The petitioner appealed the decree, but it was dismissed by the appellate court and the second appeal was also dismissed by the High Court. The respondent then filed an execution petition to enforce the decree, and the petitioner filed a review petition, claiming that there was an out-of-court settlement between the parties that nullified the decree. The executing court dismissed the review petition, and the petitioner filed a civil revision petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the out-of-court settlement between the parties did not nullify the decree and could not be a ground for review of the execution proceedings. The court noted that the executing court had rightly held that the reasons stated in the application for review were unsustainable and that the petition was devoid of merits.
Issues: Whether an out-of-court settlement between the parties to a specific performance suit, entered into after the decree was passed, nullifies the decree and can be a ground for review of the execution proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that a decree passed by a court is binding on the parties and can only be set aside or modified by the court that passed it, or by a higher court on appeal. The court held that an out-of-court settlement between the parties cannot nullify a decree and cannot be a ground for review of the execution proceedings.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the executing court.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 23.08.2023 Pronounced on 20.12.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.R.P.(MD)No.254 of 2020 and C.M.P(MD)No.10867 of 2022 C.Puhazh Arason ... Revision Petitioner (Name of the Sole Petitioner is amended vide Court order dated 12.04.2023 made in CMP(MD)No.10869 of 2022 in CRP(MD)No.254 of 2020 by CSNJ) Versus M.Congress Pon Pandian (Died)

2.Therese

3.Arun Theepan

4.Gnana Ruban ... Respondents (Respondents 2 to 4 are brought on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased Sole Respondent vide Court order dated 13.03.2023 made in CMP(MD)No.10871 of by CSNJ)

Prayer : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 22.10.2019 in E.A.No.394 of 2016 in E.A.No.306 of 2015 in E.P.No.96 of 2008 in O.S.No.106 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi and to remand the proceedings for not examining the out of Court settlement document enclosed along with the petition and for retrial to examine the attested witness of the document.

For Revision Petitioner : Mr.C.Puhazh Arason Party in Person For Respondents : Mr.F.X.Eugene for R2 to R4

ORDER

This revision is preferred as against the order dated 22.10.2019 in E.A.No.394 of 2016 in E.A.No.306 of 2015 in E.P.No.96 of 2008 in O.S.No.106 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi and to remand the proceedings for not examining the out of Court settlement document enclosed along with the above petition and for retrial to examine the attested witness of the document.

2. According to the Revision Petitioner, the Revision Petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- dated 15.01.2016 from one M.Seetharam, S/o. Manimuthu Nadar, Iythakattalai Village, Alangulam, Tenkasi District. Though he had repaid some amount in the said loan, he was unable to pay the balance amount with interest. Hence, he met the Respondent herein who is none other his cousin brother for selling his properties to him, in order to discharge the above debt. Though the sale price was fixed at Rs.9,36,500/- but in the sale agreement only Rs.3,37,500/- was mentioned and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as advance. It was agreed between the parties that the balance of Rs.2,37,500/- as per the sale agreement and the remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as agreed between the parties, to be paid by the Respondent at the time of registration.

3. However, the Respondent refused to pay Rs.6,00,000/- as promised by him and therefore, the Petitioner refused to perform his part of contract. The Respondent filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.106 of 2006 as against the Revision Petitioner. The said suit was allowed and the Trial Court passed a decree in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff against which the Petitioner filed an appeal in A.S.No.71 of 2012 which was dismissed by the III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. Aggrieved by this, the Revision Petitioner preferred the second appeal in S.A.No.327 of 2015 which was also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the Respondent filed E.P.No.96 of 2008 for executing the decree passed in his favour. In the mean time, the Revision Petitioner took steps to file SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and since his Advocate lost all the documents and case papers and so he was unable to prefer the S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. At that juncture, there was an out of Court settlement between the Petitioner and the Respondent on 20.04.2015.

4. The Petitioner had filed a copy of the out of Court settlement before the executing Court and inspite of that, the executing Court allowed E.P.No.96 of 2008 in O.S.No.106 of 2006 and delivered the suit properties to the Respondent herein. Hence, the Revision Petitioner filed a review petition in E.A.No.394 of 2016 before the Principal Sub Court at Tenkasi for reconsideration of the order.

5. He would submit that the sale agreement is illegal and invalid, fraudulently executed without men

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 34421

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTC.PUHAZH ARASON – AppellantVersusM. CONGRESS PON PANDIAN (DIED) – RespondentCRP(MD) 254 2020

An out-of-court settlement between the parties to a specific performance suit, entered into after the decree was passed, does not nullify the decree and cannot be a ground for review of the execution proceedings.

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.PUHAZH ARASON – Appellant
Versus
M. CONGRESS PON PANDIAN (DIED) – Respondent
CRP(MD) 254 2020