Vipul Ganda is an Independent Litigation Counsel with over 14 years of experience and a proven track record in Litigation and Dispute Resolution.
Triloki Nath Singh Versus Anirudh Singh(D) through LRS & Ors.
Court / Forum : Supreme Court of India Citation : Civil Appeal No(S). 3961 of 2010 Coram : Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi Subject : Suit for Declaration and Injunction Date of Decision : May 06, 2020
A suit bearing no. 13/78 was filed in 1978 for setting aside a gift made by Kunjan Singh who had died issueless but had gifted a land to one Sampatiya, who was claiming to be his daughter and for partition. The suit was dismissed, and it was held that Salehari was not the daughter of Kunjan Singh and have no right in the properties.
After the decision of the trial Court, the matter went in first appeal bearing no. 19/84 which was dismissed. During the pendency of the first appeal being continuation of the suit as stated, one of the parties to the pending proceedings, namely, Sampatiya entered into a sale deed with the Appellant- Plaintiff on January 6, 1984. Indubitably the issue regarding right, title and interest in respect of the land which was the subject matter of sale deed dated January 6, 1984, was still inchoate and not finally decided.
Eventually, the matter pending in first Appeal went into a Second Appeal No. 495/86 before the High Court of Patna, wherein a compromise decree was passed which was entered between Sampatiya and Salehari.
The Appellant- Plaintiff, when came to know about the compromise decree, filed a suit for declaration before the District Court, Chapra seeking a declaration that the compromise decree dated September 15, 1994 passed in Second Appeal No. 495/86 by the High Court is illegal, inoperative and obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and also prayed for injunction against the Respondents Defendants restraining them from entering into peaceful possession of the suit property.
The Trial Judge decided the matter on merit against the Appellant- Plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated July 31, 1998 which was challenged by the Appellant Plaintiff in appeal before the learned District Judge in Title Appeal No. 80/98(3/99). The Appeal was dismissed, and a second appeal was filed which was again dismissed by the High Court vide order dated April 20, 2009.
Hence the present Appeal.
Whether the suit filed by the Appellant Plaintiff in seeking a declaration against the decree of compromise dated September 15, 1994 passed by the High Court of Patna in Second Appeal was maintainable in view of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 and Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
The Appellant being a non-party to the compromise decree could not avail a legal remedy to question the validity of the compromise decree passed by the High Court by way of a fresh civil suit as the bar contained on Order XXIII Rule 3A was applicable to both parties and non-parties alike. However, the Appellant’s rights were preserved only by the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 so that the objections may be agitated before the Court when the compromise decree is sought to be effected.