SHRI DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. versus B.D. AGARWAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 336 · Decided: 07-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHRI DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRs. AND ANR. 
v. 
B.D. AGARWAL AND ORS. 
JULY 7, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles I9, 32 and 226. 
Writ remedy-H. U.F. Property/business-Transfer of ownership/title as 
C per settlement deed-High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of 
settlement deed-Jurisdiction of High Court-Challenge of-Held, High Court 
erred in recording the compromise between the parties in a writ petition, a 
public law remedy-High Court declared the Settlement lawful without 
examining the grounds/provisions of the law-Hence such direction would 
D amount to a misdirection in law-Registration Act-Press and Registration of 
Books Act, 1867-Ss.6 and 8-B(ii). 
Code of Civil Procedure, I908; Sec.141, 0.23 R.3: 
Rule 3 Order 23-Applicability in writ proceedings-Held: Though 
E Provisions or Principles analogous thereto are applicable in writ proceedings 
but it is not appropriate for the High Court to record a purported compromise 
in a casual manner since the settlement was between private parties-It could 
permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petitions as infructuous-By recording 
compromise the High Court, as a Writ Court cannot enlarge its jurisdiction 
by issuing direction that the suits pending in other Courts on different issues 
F stand compromised-It amounts to entrenching upon the jurisdiction of Civil 
Court-Order of the High Court recording Compromise is without jurisdiction 
and illegal-Hence actions/orders passed pursuant thereto would be without 
jurisdiction and illegal-Hence set aside-Directions issued. 
Appellant as Karta of H.U.F. was owner of a newspaper registered 
G with the Registrar of Newspapers in his name. The firm transferred the 
business of publication of the newspaper including printing press to a 
newly incorporated Company in which he became lifetime Managing 
Director-cum-Chairman and his brother and son were made Directors. 
Appellant suffered from a paralytic attack and was unable to attend the 
H 
336 
D.P. AGARWAL v. B.D. AGARWAL 
337 
business actively. His son later filed a declaration with an authority letter A 
from the appellant admitting him as owner of the newspaper and the 
Company as lessee. An agreement of sale between the firm and another 
publisher as also a deed of partition/family settlement of the H.U.F. 
properties and business were created. Appellant challenged the validity 
of the documents. Several suits/writ petitions were filed by the partners/ B 
family members in the Courts below and the High Court. One of the writ 
petitions was filed by the brother of the appellant questioning the 
genuineness of the settlement deed and appellant was.made proforma 
respondent. High Court accepted the settlement deed. Hence the present 
appeals. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, Registrar of Newspapers 
for India (RNI) effected change in the ownership in the name of new C 
publishers. Aggrieved, appellant filed a review application which was 
dismissed by the High Court. The suits pending in the Courts were 
dismissed as withdrawn. Appellant challenged the order of RNI by filing 
a writ petition before this Court. Appellant died during pendency of 
appeals and upon consideration of requests of his two wives, one wife and 
her daughter were substituted in his place and the other wife was made D 
respondent in the proceeding. 
It was contended for the appellants/writ petitioners that since 
appellant was not a party or signatory of the settlement deed which was 
accepted by the High Court, his right, title and interest were directly and E 
adversely affected; that the orders of the High Court were ex facie bad/ 
illegal; that the appellant neither had any knowledge of the settlement-
agreement nor he could take part in the proceedings of consideration of 
the purported settlement; that recording of no instructions by the lawyer 
on behalf of the appellant during the proceedings could not be construed 
as a consenUno objection to the recording of the compromise on behalf of F 
the client/appellant; that the compromise was unlawful since right of 
own~rship was sought to be determined in violation of the provisions of 
law; that a writ as public law remedy could not have taken recourse to 
for resolution of a private dispute; that the order accepting the 
compromise was misused since pending suits on other issues had been G 
withdrawn on the basis of the said order; and th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.