Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Cannot Be Challenged By Filing A Fresh Suit
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a suit filed by Appellants for declaring a compromise decree entered into between the Respondents as null and void.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that a compromise decree cannot be challenged by filing a fresh suit and the only remedy is to file a recall application.
The Court upheld the dismissal of a suit filed by Appellants for declaring a compromise decree entered into between the Respondents as null and void. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit by the Appellants wherein they also sought partition of a certain share in the ancestral property, which was in the possession of the Respondents.
A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held, “a compromise decree cannot be challenged by filing a fresh suit as there is a bar on filing a fresh suit challenging the consent decree on the ground of the legality of the compromise under Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC.”
Advocate C.M. Angadi appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Sanket M. Yenagi represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Appellants had originally filed a suit in 2003 to declare a compromise decree as null and void, arguing it was not binding on them. The decree in question was entered into between the Respondent and pertained to the partition of certain ancestral property.
The Trial Court dismissed the Appellants’ suit in 2007, and the High Court also dismissed their first appeal in 2022.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that a suit property purchased in the name of a family member is a joint family property if it is purchased from family funds.
The Court referred to its decision in Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh (2006), wherein it was held that “No appeal is maintainable against a consent decree having regard to the specific bar contained in Section 96(3) CPC…No independent suit can be filed for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful in view of the bar contained in Rule 3-A.”
The Bench explained that as per Section 96(3) of the CPC, “before passing a decree on the basis of a compromise, the Court has to satisfy itself that the suit has been adjusted by a lawful compromise. Once the Court passes a compromise decree after such a satisfaction, the decree cannot be challenged in an appeal as no appeal lies against a compromise decree.”
“Thus, even if we accept the contention of the appellants that their father was coerced by his brothers and father (appellants’ grandfather) to enter into a compromise, which led to the passing of the consent decree, a fresh suit is still not a valid remedy. In that situation, the appellants’ father should have filed a recall application before the Court that had passed the decree. The appellants’ father has never done so! Moreover, he had admitted the consent decree and never questioned its validity,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the High Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi & Anr. v. Gurusiddappa Tirakappa Malagi (Dead Through Lrs) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 517)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal; Advocate C.M. Angadi
Respondent: AOR Nikhil Jain and Anirudh Sanganeria; Advocates Sanket M. Yenagi and Chinmay Deshpande