Compromise decree challenge barred, but joint family claim to un-decreed property survived and supported partition.
A separate suit could not be maintained to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was unlawful, because Order XXIII Rule 3A bars an independent challenge and the proper remedy is before the court that recorded the compromise. At the same time, property not covered by that decree could still be claimed in partition if its joint family character was proved. On the evidence, the Tatabad residential property was treated as joint family property acquired for the benefit of all branches, so each of the three branches was held entitled to a one-third share, and partition was ordered for that property.
Issues: (i) Whether a separate suit was barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for challenging the compromise decree passed in the earlier partition suit on the ground that the compromise was not lawful. (ii) Whether the residential property at Tatabad, Coimbatore, though not included in the earlier compromise decree, was joint family property and liable to partition.
Issue (i): Whether a separate suit was barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for challenging the compromise decree passed in the earlier partition suit on the ground that the compromise was not lawful.
Analysis: Order XXIII Rule 3, as amended, requires a lawful compromise in writing and signed by the parties, and its Explanation makes clear that a compromise void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is not lawful. The statutory scheme is reinforced by Rule 3A, which bars a separate suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful. The plea in the suit was that the compromise had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, which, if established, would make the consent voidable. However, the proper course in such a case is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and seek adjudication there.
Conclusion: The separate suit was barred, and the challenge to the compromise decree could not be maintained independently.
Issue (ii): Whether the residential property at Tatabad, Coimbatore, though not included in the earlier compromise decree, was joint family property and liable to partition.
Analysis: The property at Tatabad was not part of the earlier suit or compromise decree, so the bar against questioning that decree did not govern the claim to this property. On the evidence, the family continued to function as a joint family notwithstanding the earlier partition deed, and the subsequent conduct of the branches, including common business dealings and acquisition of properties in common names, supported the inference that the joint status continued at least until the later arrangement claimed in 1981. The consideration for the Tatabad property was drawn from a family company in which members of all branches held shares, indicating that the purchase was for the benefit of the family branches and not as the separate property of one branch alone.
Conclusion: The Tatabad property was held to be joint family property, and each of the three branches was entitled to one-third share.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the compromise decree failed, but the appellants succeeded in establishing their entitlement to partition of the Tatabad residential property, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeals and a preliminary decree for partition of that property.
Ratio Decidendi: A separate suit cannot be maintained to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful, but a claim to partition of property not covered by that decree remains independently justiciable on proof that the property belongs to the joint family.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
