Civil Appeal No(s). 3961 of 2010
Rule 3A Order 23 CPC, Section 34 of Specific Relief Act
The brief facts of the case are that the piece of land was owned by Lakhan Singh (Dead) and left his property for his three sons. In which two sons died and only one son and two daughters were there now. Kuljan Singh one of the Son of Lakhan Singh has given his property to his one of the brother’s daughter (Sampatiya). Later the daughter of Kuljan Singh has filed the suit for her father’s property. The suit was dismissed and it was observed by the court that the lady claiming to be daughter of the Kuljan Singh is not his daughter. Sampatiya has sold her property to appellant. Later it was revealed that a compromise was entered into a compromise and decree was passed by the HC on the basis of that compromise. The appellant contended that the compromise decree was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and stated that Decree should be set aside.
Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) Through LR Sadhana Rai (Smt) v. Rajinder Singh and Ors. 2005 (5) SCC 566 and it was stated that the only remedy available to the party is the consent decree it was observed after the amendment provisions.
R. Rajanna v. S.R. Venkataswamy & Ors., it was observed that when one party alleges and the other denies adjustment ad satisfaction of the suit by a lawful agreement or compromise writing shall be decided on the same. And Order 23 Rule 3A bars a suit to set aside the decree on the ground that compromise was not lawful. Even the Court cannot direct the parties to file the separate suit on the subject for no suit will lie.
Appeal was dismissed as it was without any substance. Pending applications were also dismissed.
Section 7, 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988