Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Padmavati, originally filed a writ petition challenging a compromise decree dated 27.09.2010 passed in O.S. No.243 of 2010 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushtagi, which was entered into before a Lok Adalat. The petitioner alleged that the decree was obtained by fraud, fabrication, and duplicity. The suit was filed by the first respondent, Tirumalarao Kulkarni, against the second respondent, Muralidhar Kulkarni, seeking a declaration of title to agricultural land measuring 08 A-16 G in Hulagera village. The petitioner claimed that the compromise was collusive and fraudulent, and that the decree affected her rights as she was not a party to the suit. The respondents, despite service of notice, remained unrepresented. The High Court examined the facts and found that the compromise decree was indeed vitiated by fraud and fabrication. The court held that a compromise decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged even after being recorded by a Lok Adalat. The court further held that the High Court, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, has the power to quash such a decree to prevent abuse of process. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the compromise decree, and directed the parties to appear before the trial court for further proceedings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Fraud - Challenge to compromise decree on ground of fraud, fabrication, and duplicity - Lok Adalat decree - Held that a compromise decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged even after its recording by a Lok Adalat - The court must be satisfied that the agreement is lawful and not vitiated by fraud - High Court under Article 227 can quash such decree (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a compromise decree passed by a Lok Adalat can be challenged on the ground of fraud, fabrication, and duplicity, and whether the High Court can quash such a decree under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned compromise decree dated 27.09.2010 in O.S. No.243 of 2010 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushtagi is quashed. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 05.07.2021 for further proceedings.
Law Points
- Compromise decree can be challenged on ground of fraud
- fabrication
- and duplicity
- Lok Adalat decree is not immune from judicial review if obtained by fraud
- Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC requires satisfaction of court about lawful agreement
- Article 226/227 jurisdiction can be invoked to quash fraudulent compromise decree
