Compromise decrees must be registered if they create new rights; non-registration does not void agreements that have been acted upon and cannot be challenged by parties involved in their own fraudulent claims.

COMMON JUDGEMENT

This case highlights how unscrupulous litigants use the judicial process to get over Governmental controls enjoy the fruits of the decree and thereafter once again take recourse to the legal process to resort them to a position of status quo ante.

2. The above four appeals arise in respect of a Common Judgement passed in three suits. Given below are the details of the Second Appeals, their respective First Appeals and Suits which forms their genesis.

3. O.S.No.582 of 2001 was a suit filed by one Govindaraj against his son Balakrishnan and his wife and children family. The suit was one filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's half share in the suit schedule property.

4. O.S.No.413 of 2003 has been filed by one Sakunthala, the wife of Govindaraj against Balakrishnan and his family for a declaration that she is the absolute owner of the A schedule property, directing the 3^rd defendant to deliver the 3^rd item of the B schedule property and also to declare the sale deeds standing in the name of the defendants 3 and 4 relating to the B schedule property as null and void, inappropriate and finally to grant permanent injunction not to disturb the plaintiff's possession of the A schedule property. 5. O.S.No.194 of 2006 has been filed by Sathish, the son of Balakrishnan to declare his title to the suit property and for recovery of possession and damages.

6. Before narrating the facts of the case, it would be useful to show geneology of the 1^st plaintiff, Govindaraj and the ranking of the members of the family in each suit and also set out the details of the third party defendants:

7. The suit O.S.No.582 of 2001, was originally instituted by L.Govindaraj against his son Balakrishnan and his wife Renuka and children, Sathish and Sharmila. Pending the suit Govindaraj died and his daughter Chandraleha's children Shankar, Sridhar and Shalini were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 4 on the strength of a Will said to have been executed by the 1^st plaintiff in their favour. Thereafter, the 5^th defendant, a purchaser of a portion of the property was impleaded as the 5^th defendant.

8. O.S.No.194 of 2006 is filed by Sathish, the 3^rd defendant in O.S.No.582 of 2001 against Karuppusamy (1^st defendant) and Palanisamy (2^nd defendant) purchasers from Govindarajan, the 1^st plaintiff in O.S.No.582 of 2001, Govindarajan (3^rd defendant) his father Balakrishnan (11^th defendant). On the death of the 2^nd defendant Palanisamy his legal heirs were brought on record as defendants 4 to 6. Later, the 1^st defendant Karuppusamy died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 7 to 10. Thereafter, after the demise of the 3^rd defendant, Govindarajan defendants 12 to 14 were brought on record as his legal representatives in the light of a Will executed by Govindarajan in their favour.

9. O.S.No.413 of 2003 was filed by Sakunthala, Govindarajan's wife against her son Balakrishnan, the 1^st defendant in O.S.No.582 of 2001 and his son, Sathish, the 3^rd defendant in O.S.No.582 of 2001 and plaintiff in O.S.No.413 of 2003 and one B.Subramanian and Maniarasy Pethi who are purchasers from Balakrishnan and his son Sathish. Therefore, the 5^th defendant in O.S.No.582 of 2001, defendants 1, 2, 4 to 10 in O.S.No.194 of 2006 and defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.413 of 2003 and pu