Compromise decree validity: inclusion of an arguably extraneous term does not make the decree void or open to collateral attack.

A compromise decree passed by a court otherwise competent is not void merely because it includes a term that may not strictly relate to the subject-matter of the suit. Order 23 Rule 3 CPC requires the compromise to be lawful and confined to matters relating to the suit, but an erroneous view that a term falls within that scope is only an error within jurisdiction. The decree therefore remains binding, cannot be treated as a nullity, and is not open to collateral challenge in execution or against title derived under it. On that basis, the challenge to the auction purchase under the compromise decree failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a compromise decree incorporating terms which may not strictly relate to the subject-matter of the suit is void for want of jurisdiction, or whether such a decree remains binding and immune from collateral attack.

Analysis: Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a decree to be passed in accordance with a lawful compromise so far as it relates to the suit. The expression used in the rule is wider than the older formulation, and the court must see that the operative portion is confined to matters relating to the suit. However, a mistaken view that a term of compromise relates to the suit does not by itself deprive the court of jurisdiction where the court is otherwise competent to deal with the subject in terms of nature, character, and valuation. A decree passed on a compromise is not a nullity merely because the court may have acted irregularly or even wrongly in including a term that should have been excluded. Such an error is one of law within jurisdiction and does not render the decree void or open to challenge in execution or against title derived under it.

Conclusion: The compromise decree was not void for want of jurisdiction and remained binding on the parties.

Final Conclusion: The auction purchase under the compromise decree could not be impeached on the ground that the decree was a nullity, and the suit challenging it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A compromise decree passed by a court otherwise competent is not a nullity merely because the court wrongly includes a term which may not strictly relate to the suit; such an error is within jurisdiction and does not permit collateral attack.

---