TRILOKI NATH SINGH Vs. ANIRUDH SINGH(D) THR. LRS
LAWS(SC)-2020-5-8
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on May 06,2020

TRILOKI NATH SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Anirudh Singh(D) Thr. Lrs Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PUSHPA DEVI BHAGAT(DEAD) THROUGH LR SADHNA RAI(SMT) VS. RAJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
R. RAJANNA VS. S.R. VENKATASWAMY [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RITA WADHWA VS. SANJEEV SARIN [LAWS(DLH)-2022-8-104] [REFERRED TO]
JAMIA HAMDARD (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) VS. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) [LAWS(DLH)-2020-10-121] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMMA VS. KALAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-540] [REFERRED TO]
SREE SURYA DEVELOPERS VS. N. SAILESH PRASAD [LAWS(SC)-2021-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
L.DAYANANADA REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-373] [REFERRED TO]
K. SUNDARAMBAL VS. K. MURUGESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2022-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
VASUNDHARA SAHKARI SAMITI, GRIH NIRMAN SAMITI MARYADIT VS. SHRI RADHAKRISHNA MANDIR TRUST SAMITI [LAWS(CHH)-2022-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
SRI. DODDAHANUMAIAH VS. SRI. KODANDARAMAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2021-2-122] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SREE SURYA DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS / M/S. RAJA PUSHPA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. N. SAILESH PRASAD [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
R.JANAKIAMMAL VS. S.K.KUMARASAMY (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES [LAWS(SC)-2021-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
R.V.DHANDAPANI VS. R.VENUGOPAL [LAWS(MAD)-2021-10-126] [REFERRED TO]
LOKANATH VS. M.MUNIYAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-1519] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

AJAY RASTOGI, J. - (1.)The question arises in the appeal for our consideration is as to whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit.
(2.)The seminal facts which are relevant for the present purpose and the circumstances in which it arises for our consideration are that the appellant-plaintiff filed suit before 4th sub-judge, Chapra seeking a declaration that the compromise decree dated 15th September, 1994 passed in Second Appeal No. 495/86 by the High Court is illegal, inoperative and obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and also prayed for injunction against the respondents-defendants restraining them from entering into peaceful possession of the suit property.
(3.)The case in shorn of the appellant-plaintiff is that the land described in Schedule 1 of the plaint originally belonged to Lakhan Singh who died leaving behind three sons, namely, Din Dayal Singh, Jalim Singh and Kunjan Singh. Din Dayal Singh is said to have died issueless during lifetime of his father and his other brother, namely, Jalim Singh also died leaving behind a son Ram Nath Singh and two daughters Sampatiya and Soniya. As regards the third son Kunjan Singh, he is said to have died issueless but prior to his death he gifted the land of his share to Sampatiya on the basis of a gift deed dated 10th July, 1978 which came on possession over her.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.