A compromise decree remains valid unless legally challenged with substantive arguments against it; mere claims of title do not invalidate prior agreements among parties.

JUDGMENT

In a suit for partition, the parties entered into compromise.

Thereafter, a preliminary decree was passed. Final decree allotments were made. On execution of delivery, a third party who claims that he has purchased certain extent of land from one of the parties in the suit, filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC. The court below dismissed the application. Challenging this order, this original petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the decree itself is a nullity and therefore, execution court can look into this aspect and the application is maintainable.

3. The petitioner is in fact setting up his own title in respect of one of the item, which is the subject matter of the compromise among the parties to the suit. The main plank of argument is that when compromise decree is passed in respect of an item of property, over which the sharerers, have no right, it cannot be done without registering the same, as the title has already been passed to a third party.

4. According to the petitioner, the compromise decree is therefore a nullity. I am of the view that this argument has no merit. Setting up of a title by way of a rival claim is different from a claim being put forward by raising a ground on vitiating element to compromise. The compromise decree has been passed presumably as though, the parties are having a pre-existing rights over it.The parties to a compromise have no case that they don’t have any pre-existing rights. Now doubt if the petitioner’s right is involved in compromise decree, he is not bound by such compromise decree and he is free to raise such objection when such cause of action arises to him at those stages. In this case while effecting delvery, he obstructed the delivery and filed an application based on his title. Whether the petitioner has any adjudicatory claim or not is a matter to be considered by the court below. The court below considered it. There remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the order by way of appeal as contemplated under the CPC. However, if the petitioner has a case that his case is covered by Order 21 Rule 58 of the CPC, he also has a remedy by way of an appeal as per the provisions of CPC.

With the above observation, the original petition is disposed of.

sd/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

jm/