Compromise Deed Affecting Rights Of Multiple Parties Can't Be Given Effect Unless It Reflects Voluntary & Informed Consent Of All Parties: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a compromise that affects the rights of multiple parties cannot be given effect to unless it reflects the voluntary and informed consent of all such parties. 

The Court was considering a Second Appeal against a judgement and decree passed by Principal District Judge whereby the judgment and decree passed by IInd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division in suit regarding declaration of title, partition, permanent injunction and declaration of will was dismissed.

The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai held, "....For any compromise to attain legal sanctity and be binding upon the parties, it is imperative that all concerned parties, whose rights and interests are likely to be affected by such compromise, must voluntarily agree to its terms and signify their consent, preferably through their signatures on the compromise deed. In the present matter, it is an admitted position that Mangilal, who is a co-defendant and whose rights are directly involved in the subject matter of the dispute, was neither a party to the said compromise nor has he signed the compromise deed. The absence of his participation and consent renders the compromise incomplete and legally unenforceable. A compromise that affects the rights of multiple parties cannot be given effect to unless it reflects the voluntary and informed consent of all such parties. The law does not recognize a partial compromise that seeks to bind some parties while excluding others who are equally interested and affected...."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Sulabh Samaiya.

Facts of the Case

The case of the Respondents/ Plaintiffs (four children of Ambaram) before the Trial Court was that Defendant No.1 (another child of Ambaram) fraudulently obtained a bogus Will for the disputed ancestral land by taking advantage of Ambaram’s poor health and diminished capacity and had it registered without Ambaram’s or the Plaintiffs’ knowledge in 2018. Relying on this Will, mutation proceedings were initiated after Ambaram’s death without notice to the Plaintiffs, who only became aware of the Will during Tehsildar proceedings in 2019. Despite their objections, the mutation was approved without a proper hearing. The Plaintiffs contended that the land was ancestral and Ambaram had no legal authority to bequeath it unilaterally in the presence of his wife and other heirs. They further claimed that Ambaram had already partitioned the property among all heirs during his lifetime and each party had been in separate possession of their share. Following threats by the Defendants to dispossess them in June 2020, the Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the will was void, recognition of their 1/5 share each, partition by metes and bounds, and a permanent injunction restraining interference. No relief was sought against Defendant No.4, the State of Madhya Pradesh, which remained a formal party without filing a reply or written statement.

Reasoning By Court

The Court was of the opinion that the Will has not been legally or validly proved in accordance with the law and that its genuineness and due remains unestablished.

"This Court is also of considered opinion that the mandatory requirements under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for proving a Will were not fulfilled by Defendant No.1. Specifically, no attesting witness was produced to testify that the Will was executed by Ambaram in a sound state of mind, voluntarily and with knowledge of its contents. As per the settled legal principles, the burden of proof lies heavily on the beneficiary of the Will, in this case, Govind had to establish that the document was executed in accordance with law. However, DW-1 Govind, in his examination-in-chief, made no statement asserting that the Will was executed by Ambaram in full awareness and free from undue influence. The absence of medical evidence does not disprove these claims, especially since they were not contested in crossexamination. Moreover, Govind failed to satisfy the four foundational conditions for proving the genuineness of the Will as laid down in relevant precedents", the Court observed.

With respect to compromise, the Court referred to Supreme Court's decision in Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel, (1988) and thus observed, "This Court is of the considered view that plaintiffs Sayarbai and Sangeetabai, along with defendants Govind, Mangilal, and Kamlabai, were all necessary and essential parties to the compromise that was purportedly entered into. For any compromise to attain legal sanctity and be binding upon the parties, it is imperative that all concerned parties, whose rights and interests are likely to be affected by such compromise, must voluntarily agree to its terms and signify their consent, preferably through their signatures on the compromise deed. In the present matter, it is an admitted position that Mangilal, who is a co-defendant and whose rights are directly involved in the subject matter of the dispute, was neither a party to the said compromise nor has he signed the compromise deed. The absence of his participation and consent renders the compromise incomplete and legally unenforceable. A compromise that affects the rights of multiple parties cannot be given effect to unless it reflects the voluntary and informed consent of all such parties. The law does not recognize a partial compromise that seeks to bind some parties while excluding others who are equally interested and affected. Therefore, in the absence of Mangilal’s participation and his signature, the alleged compromise lacks the essential legal ingredients required under law, particularly under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure."

The Court therefore held that the said compromise does not possess legal sanctity and cannot be acted upon for the resolution of the present dispute.

However, the court pointed out that it is well settled that interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only when such findings are perverse or manifestly contrary to the material on record.

"In the present case, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below have been arrived at after a careful and meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record. The findings are neither perverse nor devoid of evidentiary support. Therefore, there exists no legal justification for this Court to interfere with the same under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure", the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Govind Through LR v. Smt. Sayarbai and Others, 2025:MPHC-IND:30528

Click here to read/ download Order