Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a partition suit filed by S. Jayanth and S. Reshma against their father and grandparents. Following the death of S. Reshma, her mother S. Ratna was brought on record as a legal heir. A compromise decree was passed in 2004, but a respondent sought to be impleaded in the suit and later challenged the decree in the High Court. The High Court set aside the compromise decree based on a memo from the respondents, which was contested by the appellant. The appellant argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the respondent was not a party to the original proceedings and that a compromise decree could only be set aside by mutual consent. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its decision, as the memo was not signed by all parties involved in the compromise. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, allowing the appeal with costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Setting Aside - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96 - The High Court set aside a compromise decree based on a memo filed by one party without the consent of the other party, which is not permissible. The court held that a compromise decree can only be set aside on a joint request from all parties involved in the compromise (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the compromise decree based on a unilateral request.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court to hear Regular First Appeal No. 1353 of 2004 afresh in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by respondent No. 1.
Law Points
- Civil Procedure
- compromise decree
- impleadment
- appeal maintainability
