Consent decree challenge fails where no vitiating ground is proved and res judicata bars a fresh suit.

A consent decree may be challenged only on grounds that would invalidate the compromise itself, such as fraud, mistake, or undue influence; a fresh suit could not be used to impeach it on an unpleaded and unproved allegation of illegality or lack of jurisdiction. Where the alleged defect depended on disputed facts and had already been raised in earlier proceedings, ignorance of law did not create a basis to avoid the decree. The earlier decree, having been passed by a competent court, also operated as res judicata and estoppel inter partes, so the same issue could not be re-agitated in a new suit. The compromise remained binding and the collateral challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a consent decree passed in the earlier suit could be set aside in a separate suit on the alleged ground that the underlying partnership was illegal and the court lacked jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the earlier decree and order operated as res judicata and estoppel so as to bar re-agitation of the same matter.

Issue (i): Whether a consent decree passed in the earlier suit could be set aside in a separate suit on the alleged ground that the underlying partnership was illegal and the court lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: A consent decree may be impeached on grounds that would invalidate the agreement itself, such as fraud, mistake, undue influence, or other vitiating factors. Here, however, no such vitiating ground was pleaded or proved. The alleged illegality depended on disputed facts, including whether the partnership consisted of more than twenty persons and whether it was unregistered. The pleadings in the earlier suit did not disclose on their face that the court had no jurisdiction, and the issue had already been raised and overruled in the proceedings under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Ignorance of law could not supply a ground to avoid the compromise.

Conclusion: The consent decree could not be set aside in the separate suit on the alleged ground of illegality or want of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier decree and order operated as res judicata and estoppel so as to bar re-agitation of the same matter.

Analysis: The earlier decree was passed by a competent court and raised an estoppel inter partes until set aside in proper proceedings. The material question whether the partnership was illegal was either raised or ought to have been raised in the earlier litigation, and a party cannot reopen in a fresh suit an issue that was or should have been finally determined. The principles of res judicata and finality of litigation applied even though the decree was by consent, and the absence of fraud or other invalidating circumstances meant the compromise remained binding.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by res judicata and estoppel.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the dismissal of the suit with costs was upheld because the compromise decree remained binding and could not be collaterally challenged in a fresh action.

---