Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kasturevva, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench, seeking to quash the compromise judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006 and 06.03.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Ramdurga, in O.S. No.81/2004, and to restore the suit for hearing on merits. The petitioner was the plaintiff in the original suit, which she had filed for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent, her daughter-in-law, concerning land bearing Sy.No.250/1 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas situated at Mallur village, Kagadhal Taluk, Saundatti. The petitioner contended that the suit property was owned by her deceased son, Basavaraddi, who had received it by gift deed, and after his death, she was in possession. The respondent, who had married Basavaraddi but later separated, allegedly obtained a compromise decree fraudulently through her cousin brother, who was the petitioner's son-in-law. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, found that the compromise decree was not in accordance with law. The court noted that the compromise was not in writing and signed by the parties, and the trial court did not record its satisfaction that the compromise was lawful, as required under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned compromise decree, and restored the suit to its original number for hearing on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Fraud - Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC - The petitioner challenged a compromise decree alleging fraud by the defendant's son-in-law. The High Court held that the compromise decree was not in accordance with law as the compromise was not in writing and signed by the parties, and the court did not record satisfaction about the lawful agreement. The decree was quashed and the suit restored. (Paras 1-6) B) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Maintainability - The High Court entertained a writ petition against a compromise decree passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Ramdurga, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, holding that the impugned decree was illegal and improper. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compromise judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S. No.81/2004 is liable to be quashed on the ground of fraud and non-compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned compromise judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006 and 06.03.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Ramdurga, in O.S. No.81/2004 are quashed. The suit is restored to its original number for hearing on merits.
Law Points
- Compromise decree can be set aside if obtained by fraud
- Compromise must be in writing and signed by parties
- Court must record satisfaction about lawful agreement
- Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 maintainable against compromise decree
- Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC mandatory requirements
