Summary
After attaining majority, a plaintiff brought a fresh suit challenging rights settled by a compromise entered during his minority. The Court held that Order XXIII Rule 3A barred the independent challenge, notwithstanding prayers framed as declarations that the decree was nonbinding and related title reliefs. Rejection of the plaint was restored. The compromise’s validity, including the minor-representation objection, remained open in the application pending before the court that recorded it.
Issues
- Whether a separate suit attacking a compromise decree could proceed through multiple declaratory and consequential prayers.
- Whether the compromise’s validity should be decided in the independent suit’s maintainability proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Order XXIII Rules 3 and 3A; Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A challenge to the lawfulness of a compromise decree belongs before the court recording it. The barred fresh suit was properly rejected. (¶ 6-13)
Held
- Rule 3A bars an independent suit to set aside a decree founded on an allegedly unlawful compromise, including one alleged to be void or voidable. The aggrieved party must pursue the challenge before the court that recorded the compromise. (¶ 7-9)
- The title, possession and instrument-related reliefs sought here depended on first displacing the compromise decree. Framing the decree as nonbinding and multiplying consequential prayers could not circumvent the statutory bar. (¶ 10-11)
- The High Court should have addressed maintainability rather than deciding the compromise’s validity by reference to Order XXXII Rule 7. The Supreme Court expressed no opinion on that validity or the parties’ underlying defences. (¶¶ 6, 11-13)
- The appeals were allowed and rejection of the plaint restored. The already-filed application before the decree court was to be decided independently on merits, with all contentions concerning the compromise kept open. No costs were ordered. (¶ 12-13)
Result
Appeals allowed. Rejection of the independent plaint restored. Validity of the compromise decree and all related contentions remain open before the court that recorded it in the pending application. No costs.