A compromise decree involving immovable property is not compulsorily registrable if it affirms existing rights. Furthermore, under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC, an independent suit to set aside a compromise decree is not maintainable; the sole remedy is to apply to the court that recorded the compromise.

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant–plaintiff Krishna Ram against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, whereby the judgment and decree dated 14.05.1997 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri in a suit for declaration, were reversed.

Brief Facts

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Krishna Ram filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 27 kanals 17 marlas and 1/6th share of land measuring 10 kanals 17 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, with all rights appurtenant thereto in Shamlat Deh etc., and further sought a declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 passed in favour of the defendant in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled “Ajay Kumar vs. Krishna Ram” by the Court of Shri M.L. Bansal, the then Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri, is illegal, null and void, ineffective and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. It was also prayed that mutation No. 844 attested by A.C. II Grade, Jagadhri, on 22.07.1988 in pursuance of the said decree and further entries regarding ownership and possession based on the said decree are also illegal, null and void, and that a decree for permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendant from interfering in the actual physical possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute.

3. The suit was filed against Ajay Kumar, minor son of Shri Babu Ram, through his father and natural guardian, Shri Babu Ram. Briefly stated, the plaintiff alleged that he is the owner in possession of the suit land mentioned above and that the defendant, being a minor, and his father have no concern with the plaintiff or the land in dispute. It was further averred that in the year 1988, the father of the defendant, Babu Ram, requested the plaintiff to stand surety for him in order to secure a loan from the bank for the construction of a pucca house. The plaintiff, being an illiterate and old man, agreed to stand surety, and for that purpose, his thumb impressions were obtained on certain papers, which were said to be required for the loan process. However, by playing fraud and misrepresentation, Babu Ram and the defendant got a fraudulent decree from the Court regarding the suit land. The plaintiff never executed any transfer deed or relinquished his ownership rights in any manner. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 and the consequential mutation No. 844 were the result of fraud and misrepresentation, obtained with mala fide intention and ulterior motives.

4. The defendant, on the other hand, denied the allegations and asserted that the plaintiff is related to him, being the brother of his grandfather. It was pleaded that there was no fraud or misrepresentation, and that the suit land was given to the defendant in a family settlement, in which the plaintiff voluntarily filed a suit admitting the claim of the present defendant. Based on such admission and consent, the decree was passed by the Court, which was perfectly legal, valid, and binding upon all parties, including the present plaintiff. The defendant further stated that mutation No. 844 was rightly sanctioned in his name in consequence of the decree. It was also pleaded that under the said family arrangement, the plaintiff retained with him cash and jewellery in lieu of the land given to the defendant. The defendant further c