AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (6) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... daughters defendant 2 Tara Bai and defendant 3 Shanta Bai and a son Krishnaswamy Rao plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit -O. S No. 192/77 for partition and possession of his 5/8th share in the suit property. Later on a joint Memo signed by all the parties and their advocates was filed in the suit on 21-9-1979 stating that the plaintiff Krishnaswamy Rao was entitled to 5/8th share and each of defendants 1 to 3 was entitled to 1/8th share. Accordingly, a preliminary decree in terms of the joint Memo was ordered to be drawn up on 21-9-1979. Thereafter an application for final decree in F.D.P. No. 18/80 was filed by the plaintiff on 16-8-1980. The present revision petitioner-defendant 2 appeared in the decree final proceedings and consented ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able one. So if any agreement is vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, such an agreement or compromise shall not be lawful within the meaning of Order 23 Rule 3A C.P.C. 7. It thus becomes crystal clear that now a suit to question the compromise decree on the ground that it is unlawful is barred. If a suit is barred, can it be said that the party has no right to question the compromise decree either on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation. O. 47 R. 1 C.P.C. reads as:- "Application for review of judgment: (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olding that the only remedy available to the revision petitioner was to file an application for review. 8. Then the next question is what is the remedy to a party complaining of fraud or misrepresentation being perpetrated on her. Sec. 151 C.P.C. reads as: - "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of -the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." The learned author Shri Mulla has enumerated a list of various cases in which the Court would be justified in invoking the inherent jurisdiction under S. 151 C.P.C. The learned author Shri Mulla has stated in his C.P.C. 14th Edn. Vol. 1, page 792 at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an opportunity to the revision petitioner to lead evidence. It is not for the Court to ask the parties whether they have got any evidence to lead or not. It is for the parties to tell to the Court that they have got evidence to lead and the Court should record the same. When the revision petitioner himself has not chosen to lead evidence on this point, it would be too much to say that the Court did not give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to lead evidence. Therefore the said argument advanced by the learned counsel Shri Babu is rejected. 10. The suit O. S. No. 192/77 for partition and separate possession was filed in 1977. A joint Memo signed by the present revision petitioner and all other parties and their respective advocat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taken to the compromise petition without enabling her to know the contents is rather extremely hard to believe. When the Court recorded the compromise, it would have read out the petition and it would have told the parties that it bears their signatures and the signatures of their lawyers. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that she is deaf or dumb and that she did not hear when the Court read out the same to her. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Court below rightly held that the plea of fraud and misrepresentation is not at all supported by any circumstances, much less, by any evidence much less, by any evidence on record. Therefore, the lower Court was justified in dismissing I. A. No. 3. 11. Further it can be seen ....