LexR. RAJANNA versus S.R. VENKATASWAMY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014) 14 S.C.R. 535 R. RAJANNA v. S.R. VENKATASWAMY & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 10416-10417 of 2014) A NOVEMBER 20, 2014 B [T. S. THAKUR ANO R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 "-- Or. XX/II r. 3 - Compromise of suit - Validity of a decree passed on a compromise in a suit - Challenged to, in a separate suit- C Held: Separate suit is 'not maintainable - Only remedy available to the aggrieved parly is to approach the Courl which had passed the compromise decree. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: Order XXlll Rule 3A of Code of Civil D Procedure, 1908 clearly bars a suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. This implies that no sooner a question relating to lawfulness of the agreement or compromise is raised· before the Court that passed the E decree on the basis of any such agreement or compromise, it is that Court and that Court alone who can examine and determine that question. The Court cannot direct the parties to file a separate suit on the subject for no such suit Will lie in view of the provisions F of Order XXlll Rule 3A. On facts, the High Court fell in a palpable error in directing the plaintiff to take recourse to the remedy by way of separate suit, challenging the validity of the compromise decree. The High Court in the process remained oblivious of the provisions of Order G XXlll Rules 3 and 3A as also orders passed by the City Civil Court rejecting the plaint in which the trial court had not only placed reliance upon Order XXlll Rule 3A but also the decision of the Court in *Pushpa Devi's case holding that a separate suit was not maintainable and H 535 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R. A that the only remedy available to the aggrieved party was to approach the Court which h.ad passed the compromise decree. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the'matter is remitted back to the High Court. [Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13)[540-E-G; 541-C-D; B 542-D-E] c D E F Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh and Ors. 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 370 : (2006) 5 sec 566 - relied on. Banwari Lal v. Chanda Devi 1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 524: (1993) 1 sec 581 ~referred to. CASE LAW REFERENCE 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 370 relied on. Para 11 1992 (3) Suppl. SCR'524 · referred to Para 12 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 10416-10417 of2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2012 of the ·High .Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in I.A. No. 1 of 2011 ·and I.A. No. 2 of 2011 in RF.A. No. 223of1991. Shesagiri Rao, Joseph Pookatt, Ms. Awantika Manohar, Prashant Kumar, Mis. AP & J Chambers, Advs., for the Appellal')t. ' . . s. N. Bhat, Adv., for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Cour.t was delivered by T. S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Can the validity of a decree passed on a compromise be challenged in a' separate suit is the short question that falls for determin'ation in this appeal. It arises in the following G circumstari"ces: 3. The appellant filed .a suit for declaration to the effect that gift~deed dated 12'h August. 1982 executed by one Ramaiah was void and for a permanent prohibitory injur:iction restraining the defendant-respondent from alienating the suit H schedule property or interfering with the peaceful possession R. RAJANNA v. S.R. VENKATASWAMY & ORS. 537 [T. S. THAKUR, J.) and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff. By its judgment A and order dated 25'" March, 1991, the Trial Court decreed the suit holding the gift-deed in question to be null and void, hence not binding on the plaintiff-appellant. Defendants No.2 and 3 in the said suit were also directed to demolish the building constructed in the schedule property and surrender possession B thereof to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed against him the respondent filed RFA No.223of1991 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. According to the respondent a compromise petition was in terms of Order XXlll Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code filed.by the parties before C the High Court in the said appeal settling the dispute amicably. The appellant stoutly disputes that position and asserts that no such comprise was either needed nor was the same ever entered into between the parties. The appellant describes the so-called compromise deed as a forged and fabricated · o document. The appellant denies that he ever signed any such compromise petiti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.