Supreme Court: Compromise Partition Decree Without Impleading Legal Heir Of Owner Is Nullity, Challenge Not Barred Under Order 23 Rule 3A

The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Telangana High Court, holding that a compromise partition decree obtained without impleading a coparcenary daughter or her legal heirs, who are necessary parties under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is a nullity in the eyes of the law.

The Court held that omitted legal heirs cannot be treated as strangers to the lis or barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) from seeking recall of a compromise decree passed behind their back, remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, "The compromise decree obtained by the brothers/legal heirs being the plaintiffs and the defendants without impleading Late Smt. Ballo Bai or her legal heirs, despite her being a necessary party to the suit, was a nullity in the eyes of law."

Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar appeared for the Appellants, while Senior Advocate A. Chaya Devi, Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa and Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju appeared for the Respondents

The appellants, i.e. legal heirs of one Late Smt. Ballo Bai, had filed Interlocutory Applications before the High Court praying for recall of the compromise decree, seeking impleadment in the original suit as proper and necessary parties and seeking to restrain the parties to the proceedings from alienating or creating third-party rights over the subject property in the Appeal Suit.

Late Shri Dhan Singh had instituted a suit for partition against his brothers regarding ancestral property without impleading Ballo Bai, despite her claiming a 1/4th coparcenary share. After the trial court dismissed the suit, an appeal was preferred wherein the original parties entered into a compromise partition behind the back of Ballo Bai’s legal heirs, which was accepted by the High Court.

Upon learning of the compromise decree, the appellants moved interlocutory applications for recall and impleadment; however, the High Court rejected them as not maintainable.

The Court observed, "we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court is erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law. By virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by Act 39 of 2005, Late Smt. Ballo Bai, being the legal heir of Late Shri Tikaram Singh, was entitled to stake a claim for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and hence, was undoubtedly a necessary party to the proceedings."

The Court held that Late Smt. Ballo Bai and her legal heirs cannot be treated as strangers to the lis and thus they could not be disentitled from challenging the compromise and to seek recall of a decree obtained behind their back by virtue of the bar contained under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted to the High Court for reconsideration.

Cause Title: Geeta Bai & Ors. v. K Arjun Singh & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No(s).20008-20010 of 2026]

Appearances:

Appellants: Advocate on Record Rao Vishwaja, Advocate K. Parameshwar, Advocate P. Vamshi Rao

Respondents: Senior Advocate A. Chaya Devi, Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa, Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju, Advocate on Record Krishna Kumar Singh, Advocate on Record Ankur S. Kulkarni, Advocate on Record Ankita Gupta, Advocate on Record B. Shravanth Shanker and others

Click here to read/download the Order