TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses defendant 2's revision in partition suit, emphasizing limits on challenging compromise decree.</h1> <h3>Tara Bai Versus V.S. Krishnaswamy Rao</h3> The Court dismissed the revision filed by defendant 2 against an order in a partition suit involving property left by their father. Defendant 2's ... - Issues:- Revision against order in partition suit- Allegation of fraud and misrepresentation in joint Memo- Dismissal of application under Sec. 151 C.P.C.- Consideration of inherent powers of the Court under Sec. 151 C.P.C.- Rejection of review application for fraud or misrepresentation- Justification for dismissing the application for amendmentAnalysis:1. The judgment involves a revision filed by defendant 2 against an order in a partition suit over property left by their father. The suit initially led to a joint Memo signed by all parties, including the plaintiff and defendant 2, determining their respective shares. However, defendant 2 later alleged fraud and misrepresentation in signing the joint Memo, leading to the present dispute.2. The trial Court dismissed defendant 2's application under Sec. 151 C.P.C., citing that challenging a compromise decree on the grounds of unlawfulness was barred by O. 23 R. 3A C.P.C. The Court held that the only recourse was a review application under O. 47 C.P.C., which did not apply to fraud or misrepresentation in the compromise.3. The judgment delves into the inherent powers of the Court under Sec. 151 C.P.C. to set aside orders obtained by fraud. Citing legal precedents, the judgment emphasizes the Court's authority to intervene in cases of fraud or misrepresentation, even if a compromise decree has been recorded.4. The judgment rejects defendant 2's argument for leading evidence on the alleged fraud, stating that the Court's role is not to prompt parties to present evidence. It highlights the timeline of events leading to the fraud allegation, indicating a lack of merit in defendant 2's claims.5. Additionally, the judgment addresses defendant 2's application for amending the written statement to assert the property as separate, contrary to previous admissions. The Court upholds the trial Court's decision to reject the amendment application based on the inconsistency with prior statements.6. Ultimately, the Court finds no substance in the revision and dismisses it without costs, affirming the trial Court's decisions regarding the application under Sec. 151 C.P.C. and the amendment application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
