Case Note & Summary
The applicant filed a civil application seeking recall of an order dated 23.12.2011 by which Second Appeal No.356 of 2001 was disposed of in terms of a compromise arrived at among the parties to the appeal. The applicant, a medical practitioner, claimed that he had purchased 94 R of agricultural land from Gat No.88 by way of two registered sale deeds dated 26.02.1998 and 29.09.1998 from respondent no.1, who was one of the parties to the second appeal. The applicant alleged that he was neither informed nor made a party to the second appeal proceedings, and his rights as a prior purchaser were deliberately overlooked when the compromise was entered into. The background involved a regular civil suit no.475 of 1994, the decree of which was set aside by the first appellate court, leading to the filing of the second appeal. During its pendency, a stay order was passed on 20.12.2001. In violation of that stay, respondent no.3 executed a sale deed dated 18.08.2006 in favour of respondent nos.9 and 10, leading to contempt proceedings and appointment of a court receiver. Subsequently, another public proclamation for sale was published in 2009, prompting further contempt action. In November 2011, the applicant came to know of the second appeal and immediately filed an intervention application, but it was not considered. Meanwhile, the other parties filed a compromise pursis on 03.11.2011, which was recorded by the Registrar on 04.11.2011, though the record noted that some respondents were not parties to it. The second appeal was disposed of on 23.12.2011 based on that compromise. Three days later, respondent no.3 executed a sale deed dated 26.12.2011 in favour of respondent nos.4 to 8 in respect of 66 R of the same land, allegedly with the consent of respondent no.1 and the legal heirs of respondent no.2. The applicant contended that the entire compromise and subsequent sale deeds were products of fraud, suppression of facts, and violation of court orders, and therefore the order dated 23.12.2011 deserved to be recalled to protect his pre-existing rights. The court heard the applicant's submissions on 20.08.2016 and reserved judgment; the provided text contains only the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and does not disclose the final decision.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Recall - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - Applicant sought recall of compromise decree on ground that he was not joined as party despite being lawful purchaser of part of suit property under registered sale deeds executed in 1998 and being in possession - Applicant alleged that respondents were aware of his rights but deliberately excluded him and obtained compromise by suppressing material facts - Court was urged to recall the order to protect applicant's pre-existing substantive rights (Paras 1-9). B) Civil Procedure - Interim Orders - Violation - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - During pendency of Second Appeal, interim stay was operative yet respondent no.3 executed sale deed dated 18.08.2006 in favour of respondent nos.9 and 10 in violation of stay - Contempt proceedings were initiated and Court Receiver was appointed, but further acts including public proclamation for sale in 2009 and further sale deed dated 26.12.2011 were committed in breach of court orders - Applicant contended that respondents misused legal process and played fraud on court (Paras 3-7). C) Property Law - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sections 53A, 54 - Applicant claimed right, title and possession over 94 R land from Gat No.88 by virtue of registered sale deeds dated 26.02.1998 and 29.09.1998 executed by respondent no.1 with consent of legal representatives of respondent no.2 - Despite prior equitable rights, later purchasers respondent nos.9,10 and 4-8 acquired conflicting interests during pendency of appeal and stay - Applicant argued that his right as prior purchaser cannot be defeated by a compromise to which he was not a party (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 23.12.2011 disposing of Second Appeal No.356/2001 on the basis of a compromise between the parties thereto should be recalled because the applicant who had purchased a portion of the suit property under registered sale deeds dated 26.02.1998 and 29.09.1998 was not made a party to the compromise and his rights were affected; and whether the compromise was vitiated by fraud and suppression of facts.
Law Points
- Recall of compromise decree on ground of fraud
- non-joinder of necessary party having vested rights
- violation of interim stay order
- protection of rights of prior purchaser of suit property
- compromise obtained by suppression of material facts
