https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189318 The Supreme Court held that remote reversioners had the right to sue on a compromise decree despite the female next reversioner being alive. The Court affirmed the binding effect of the compromise decree in a property dispute, stating that a nearer reversioner could not displace a remote reversioner's rights. The Court rejected the argument that the remote reversioners were incompetent to sue due to their distant relation and emphasized the equitable principle of upholding compromise decrees. Following the female next reversioner's death, the Court granted a decree in favor of the remote reversioners, overturning the Division Bench's decision and reinstating the Single Judge's order. en-us Tue, 19 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jan 2017 16:56:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189318 The Supreme Court held that remote reversioners had the right to sue on a compromise decree despite the female next reversioner being alive. The Court affirmed the binding effect of the compromise decree in a property dispute, stating that a nearer reversioner could not displace a remote reversioner's rights. The Court rejected the argument that the remote reversioners were incompetent to sue due to their distant relation and emphasized the equitable principle of upholding compromise decrees. Following the female next reversioner's death, the Court granted a decree in favor of the remote reversioners, overturning the Division Bench's decision and reinstating the Single Judge's order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189318