https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307606 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. en-us Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Apr 2023 21:07:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307606 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307606