TULSAN versus PYARE LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 865 · Decided: 29-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

( 
TULSAN 
A 
v. 
PYARE LAL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s.47, Order 23, Rule I-Suit for declaration with regard to shares in 
property allocated in a consent decree passed in a suit for injunction-Held, C 
in view of provisions of s.47, subsequent suit is clearly barred-A consent 
decree remains valid unless it is set aside-It would be binding on parties-
Although principles of res judicata stricto sensu would not apply, principles 
of estoppel would apply -A consent decree in terms of Order 2 3, r.1 need not 
be confined to relief prayed or subject matter of suit-It would be binding D 
on parties and on revenue authorities-Estoppel. 
Respondent no. I filed a suit against respondent no. 3 and the appellant, 
the wife of respondent no. 2, for permanent injunction. The parties were co-
sharers. A settlement was arrived at between the parties with regard to 
allocation of shares in the properties, and the suit was decided in terms of E 
the compromise. The respondents moved the revenue-authorities for mutation, 
on the basis of the consent decree. Their request was stated to have been 
declined on the ground that by reason of the said consent decree, their right, 
title and interest had not been declared. Therefore, a second suit was filed for 
declaration. The present appeal was filed against the decision of the High F 
Court in the second appeal arising out of the said suit for declaration. 
It was contended for the appellant that in view of the provisions ofs.47 
ofthe_Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the said second suit was not maintainable. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.1. A consent decree in terms of Order 23, Rule I of the Code 
~-
of Civil Procedure, 1908 need not be confined only to the reliefs prayed for. 
It may not be confined to the subject matter of the suit. Although, the consent 
decree was passed in a suit for injunction, for all intent and purpose it was a 
865 
G 
H 
866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
· A preliminary decree passed in a suit for partition. A fresh proceeding could 
not be initiated for giving effect thereto, even if respondents' contention that 
their rights to possess under the consent decree were not found to be 
enforceable by the Revenue authorities was to be accepted. (871-D-El 
1.2. In view of the provisions contained in Section 47 of the Code, a 
B subsequent suit was clearly bared. A consent decree, it is trite, remains valid 
unless it is set aside. It would be binding on the parties. Although, the 
principles of res judicata stricto sens11 would not apply, the principles of 
estoppel would. The respondents could not disclaim the said consent decree 
by filing a suit for declaration. The consent decree was also binding on the 
C Revenue Authorities. Respondents also could initiate a proceeding for 
preparation of final decree. They could also have filed an appropriate 
application for measurement of the land and delivery of possession pursuant 
thereto. But, by no stretch of imagination, a second suit could be held to be 
maintainable. (871-E-F; 872-F-GJ 
D 
Venkata Reddy and Ors. v. Pethi Reddy, AIR (1963) SC 992, relied on. 
Uma Shankar (dead) and Ors. v. Sarabjeet (dead) by LRs. and Ors., 
(1996) 2 sec 371, held not applicable. 
2. The High Court failed to take into consideration that there existed 
E an error apparent on the face of record. As the second suit filed by respondent 
no. 1 was not maintainable, the question of directing appellant to give one 
bigha of land, out of her share to respondent no. 1 did not arise. It also erred 
in holding that in terms of the compromise arrived at by and between the 
parties, respondent no. 1 was entitled to l/3rd of the total property plus one 
bigha. (873-8-C) 
F 
G 
H 
3. The respondents would be at liberty to file an appropriate application, 
if they so desire, for measurement of lands in question and division of lands 
in terms of the said consent decree. It is further declared that the consent 
decree shall be binding on the Revenue Authorities. (873-C-DI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4329 of2006. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.3.2004 of the High Court 
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Review Nos. 34 and 52 of2003. 
R. Sundaravaradan, R.N. Keshwani and Ramlal Roy for the Appellant. 
r 
• 
TULSAN v. PY ARE LAL [SINHA, J.] 
867 
Bhupender Yadav, R.C. Kohli and Deepak Yadav for the Responden
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.