Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Goa considered a writ petition challenging an order of the Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji in Special Civil Suit No.9/2023/A. The underlying suit concerned partition of land under Survey No.31/13 of village Goltim with a building standing thereon. The defendants in the suit had filed a written statement and counterclaim challenging a Deed of Relinquishment dated 11.05.2022 executed by them in favour of the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the parties arrived at Consent Terms dated 05.12.2024, under which the defendants ratified the relinquishment deed and the plaintiffs agreed to execute a Deed of Gift in favour of the defendants to the extent of their 3/4th undivided right in the suit property and building. The consent terms also recorded a global settlement of other family disputes involving three other properties in which the parties claimed tenancy rights to half share each; for one such property, a joint declaration of tenancy was obtained from the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi, and for the other two, survey records showed the name of the father of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 in the tenants column. The Trial Court by order dated 06.03.2025 refused to pass a decree in terms of the consent terms, holding that properties beyond the suit property could not be included and directing the parties to produce title documents. The petitioners, who were the plaintiffs in the suit, filed the present writ petition contending that the Trial Court failed to consider Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and erroneously refused to exercise jurisdiction. The High Court examined the provision of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and the precedent in Keshav s/o Dattaram v. Yamunabai w/o Nagoba reported in 1985 SSC Online Bom 158. It held that the rule expressly permits a decree in accordance with a compromise 'so far as 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'. The court reasoned that as long as one subject matter of the consent terms is the suit property, the compromise can extend to terms beyond the suit, and the court need not inquire into title documents because the terms do not bind third parties. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to pass a decree in terms of the consent terms, preferably within one month. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 23.07.2025 at 10.00 am with an authenticated copy of the order. The rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise of Suit - Scope of Order 23 Rule 3 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 23 Rule 3 - A consent decree may include properties beyond the subject matter of the suit if the suit itself has been adjusted wholly or in part; the phrase 'so far as 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' permits such inclusion. The Trial Court erroneously held that only suit properties could be included and required title documents; the High Court held that the court must record a lawful compromise and pass a decree in accordance therewith, without examining title to additional properties (Paras 9-11). B) Civil Procedure - Consent Decree - Effect on Third Parties and Proof of Title - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 23 Rule 3 - Consent terms including properties claimed by parties do not bind third parties not party to the terms; therefore, there is no need for parties to produce title documents for properties beyond the suit to enable a decree. The Trial Court's direction to produce title documents was contrary to Order 23 Rule 3 (Paras 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to pass a decree in terms of Consent Terms on the ground that properties beyond suit property could not be included and title documents were required.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 06.03.2025 quashed and set aside; Trial Court directed to pass decree in terms of Consent Terms dated 05.12.2024; Trial Court requested to dispose of suit preferably within one month; parties to appear before Trial Court on 23.07.2025 at 10.00 am with authenticated copy of order.
Law Points
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Order 23 Rule 3
- compromise can include matters beyond suit subject matter
- court must record lawful compromise
- no requirement to prove title to properties included
- consent terms do not bind third parties
