Compromise decree challenge barred by fresh suit rule; no compulsory registration for recognised family arrangement.

A compromise decree can be challenged only in the same proceedings, and a fresh suit is barred by Order 23 Rule 3-A where the compromise is alleged to be unlawful. The pleadings here lacked specific particulars of fraud, and the evidence was insufficient to show incapacity or absence of free consent, so the suit was also barred by limitation. The decree was treated as recognising a pre-existing family arrangement, so compulsory registration was not required. The challenge to the compromise decree therefore failed, and the trial court decree was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a separate suit to challenge a compromise decree was barred by Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the compromise decree required compulsory registration; and (iii) whether the suit was barred by limitation and unsupported by pleaded particulars of fraud.

Issue (i): Whether a separate suit to challenge a compromise decree was barred by Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The decree assailed in the suit was found to be founded on a compromise recorded in court. The challenge was based on alleged incapacity and fraud, but the pleadings did not contain the requisite particulars of fraud. The proper course, where a compromise decree is questioned on the ground that the compromise was not lawful, is to seek relief in the same proceedings rather than by a fresh suit.

Conclusion: The subsequent suit was barred by Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the compromise decree required compulsory registration.

Analysis: The decree was treated as one recognising an asserted pre-existing family arrangement and not as an instrument creating rights for the first time. On that footing, the decree was not viewed as one attracting compulsory registration.

Conclusion: The compromise decree did not require compulsory registration.

Issue (iii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation and unsupported by pleaded particulars of fraud.

Analysis: The evidence adduced to show incapacity was found insufficient to establish continuous incapacity or a lack of free consent at the relevant time. The plaint also failed to plead the particulars of fraud as required in law. In the absence of a successful challenge to the compromise decree, the suit filed subsequently was held to be time-barred.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the plea of fraud was not established.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the lower appellate court was set aside and the trial court decree was restored, with the result that the challenge to the compromise decree failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A compromise decree can be impeached only in the manner permitted by law in the same proceedings, and a fresh suit is barred where fraud is neither specifically pleaded nor proved; a decree recognising a pre-existing family arrangement does not require compulsory registration.

---