IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

SA No.153 of 2003

Triloki Nath Singh, S/o Late Babulal Singh, resident of village-

Taraiya Pargana Goa, P.S.-Taraiya, District-Saran.

Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant.

Versus

1. Anirudh Singh

2. Jogendra Singh

3. Ramjee Singh

All sons of Late Teni Singh, resident of village-Marwa

Pargana Goa, P.S.-Mashrakh (P

4. Piyar Chand Singh, S/o Late Ram Roop Singh, resident of

village-Marwa Pargana Goa, P.S. Mashrakh (Panapur),

P.O. Rampur Rudra, District-Saran.

Defendants-Respondents-Respondents.

-----------

For the appellant : - Sri Rameshwar Nath Roy, Sr. Advocate.

Sri Kapil Deo Singh, Advocate,

Sri Vijay Kumar, Advocate.

For the respondents: - None.

07/

20-04-2009

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the

plaintiff-appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and

decree of both the learned courts below.

3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 210 of

1995 which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for

declaration that the compromise decree dated 15.09.1994

passed by the High Court in Second Appeal No. 495 of

1986 was illegal, inoperative, ineffective and not binding

upon the plaintiff and the right, title and interest of the

plaintiff over the suit property be declared along with a

decree of permanent injunction and for other ancillary

reliefs.

4. The said suit was dismissed on contest by

2

the learned 4^th Subordinate Judge, Chapra vide his

judgment and decree dated 31.08.1998. Against the

aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the

plaintiff–appellant filed Title Appeal No. 80 of 1998 (3 of

1999) which was dismissed on contest by the learned 9^th

Additional District Judge, Saran vide his judgment and

decree dated 5.5.2003.

5. From the arguments as well as the materials

on record including the impugned judgments and decree of

the learned courts below it is quite apparent that after

considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties they

came to the conclusion that as the compromise has been

accepted by the High Court, a subordinate Court cannot

have jurisdiction to say that fraud was played upon the

High Court. It was also held that the settled principle of

law is that the Court, in which fraud or misrepresentation

has been made in obtaining the decree, had the

jurisdiction to adjudicate as to whether any fraud etc. was

exercised. Hence it was held that the remedy of the suit

cannot be used for challenging a compromise which has

been entered into before the High Court and only if the

High Court would have set aside the compromise decree

on the ground of fraud and collusion or would have

directed the plaintiff to file a regular suit in that regard, the

lower court could have considered the matter. Hence it

was held that the said court or the trial court cannot legally

3

have jurisdiction for setting aside a compromise decree

passed in a Second Appeal by the High Court without any

permission from the High Court.

This Court does not find any error in the

impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts

below nor does it find any substantial question of law

involved in the instant Second Appeal which is

accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under

Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

S.Sb/-

(S.N. Hussain, J.)