Can the validity of a decree passed on a compromise be challenged in a separate suit is the short question that falls for determination in this appeal.-NO


Lower court decreed the suit as prayed- Appeal filed – pending appeal a compromise petition filed – High court allowed the appeal as per the terms of compromise and set aside the lower court decree – I.A. filed stating that the compromise petition and memorandum are not signed by appellant and also filed suit challenging the same – defendant filed Or.7,Rule 11(d) C.P.C. – for rejection of plaint as per the provisions of Order XXIII Rule  3  CPC  and  in  particular Rule 3A which bars a suit to have a  compromise  decree  set  aside  on  the ground that the compromise on which the  decree  had  been  passed  did  not exist or take place– plaint rejected – High court declined to entertain the I.A. filed for setting aside the compromise decree as it was obtained by playing fraud on the court with forged signatures of appellant – Apex court held that it is a settled law that
"3. Compromise of suit. –
Where it is proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the
Court that a suit has  been  adjusted  wholly  or  in  part  by  any  lawful
agreement or compromise [in writing and signed by  the  parties],  or  where
the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole  or  any  part
of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court  shall  order  such  agreement,
compromise or satisfaction to be  recorded,  and  shall  pass  a  decree  in
accordance therewith [so far it relates to the parties to the suit,  whether
or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise, or  satisfaction  is
the same as the subject-matter of the suit]:

[Provided that where it is alleged by one party  and  denied  by  the  other
that an adjustment or satisfaction has been  arrived  at,  the  Court  shall
decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose  of
deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded,  thinks
fit to grant such adjournment.]

Explanation - An agreement or compromise which is  void  or  voidable  under
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 shall not be deemed to be  lawful  within  the
meaning of this rule."
Therefore, the only remedy available to a party to a  consent  decree
to avoid such consent decree, is to approach the court  which  recorded  the
compromise and made a decree in terms of it, and establish  that  there  was
no compromise. In that event, the court which recorded the  compromise  will
itself consider and decide the question as to  whether  there  was  a  valid
compromise or not. This is so  because  a  consent  decree  is  nothing  but
contract between parties superimposed with  the  seal  of  approval  of  the
court. The validity of a consent decree depends wholly on  the  validity  of

the agreement or compromise on which it is made.

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more