R. RAJANNA Vs. S.R. VENKATASWAMY
LAWS(SC)-2014-11-37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
November 20,2014
R. Rajanna
Appellant
VERSUS
S.R. Venkataswamy
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BANWARI LAL VS. CHANDO DEVI [REFERRED TO]PUSHPA DEVI BHAGAT VS. RAJINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RAM AWADH SINGH VS. ADDL COMMISSIONER AZAMGARH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-105] [REFERRED TO]BANDU DHULAPPA GIRMAL VS. VRUSHABH CHANDRAKANT GIRMAL [LAWS(BOM)-2023-9-213] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHANGSU DEY VS. ASHIS DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUPATI R BHANDARI VS. COMUNIDADE OF BANDORA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
LOKANATH VS. M.MUNIYAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-1519] [REFERRED TO]
SAKINA SULTANALI SUNESARA VS. SHIA IMAMI ISMAILI [LAWS(GJH)-2019-8-102] [REFERRED TO]
R.JANAKIAMMAL VS. S.K.KUMARASAMY (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES [LAWS(SC)-2021-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
YALLAPPA VS. AVVAKKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-6-294] [REFERRED TO]
AJITPALSINGH S/O NIRMALSINGH KHALSA VS. HAJI HARUN ABDUL SHAKUR [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-282] [REFERRED TO]
RAMWATI VS. SHAKUNTALA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KUMAR VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(ALL)-2022-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
VAJIYANTABAI NAMDEO PATIL VS. NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2021-3-257] [REFERRED TO]
AJITPALSINGH S/O NIRMALSINGH KHALSA VS. SANJAY S/O SHAMRAO DEULKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-333] [REFERRED TO]
DR.HANS U. NAGAR VS. JOHN NAGAR [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA BADOLA VS. TUSHAR PATNI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-320] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA SHEERSHA THIRTHARU VS. SIDDALINGAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2019-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
GSM TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD VS. VEENA ANAND [LAWS(P&H)-2022-5-221] [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]
VASUNDHARA SAHKARI SAMITI, GRIH NIRMAN SAMITI MARYADIT VS. SHRI RADHAKRISHNA MANDIR TRUST SAMITI [LAWS(CHH)-2022-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKER PRASAD VS. LAKSHMI DEVI [LAWS(PAT)-2023-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL VS. HARISHANKAR RAMNIVAS SHARMA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH KUMAR PALIWAL VS. UMESH KUMAR PALIWAL [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-88] [REFERRED TO]
ANSHU MALHOTRA VS. MUKESH MALHOTRA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
PREETI PRATAP SINGH VS. KIRAN RAJ BISARIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-318] [REFERRED TO]
SUBASH MOHAPATRA VS. SMT. KAMALA MOHAPATRA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOKI NATH SINGH VS. ANIRUDH SINGH(D) THR. LRS [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
MOTILAL VS. B.K.BABU SAHIB [LAWS(MAD)-2019-5-194] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE CHANDRAPRABHU MAHARAJ JUNA, JAIN MANDIR TRUST VS. NIRMAL BHURATH [LAWS(MAD)-2023-11-143] [REFERRED TO]
HANS U NAGAR VS. JOHN NAGAR [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-152] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH RAI AND ORS. VS. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
KASTUREVVA VS. JAYASHREE [LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-286] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWARLAL VS. LAND MARK EXECUTIVE PVT. LTD. [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR RASTOGI VS. SUNIL KUMAR RASTOGI [LAWS(PAT)-2022-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
ASHIYA UMMAL VS. S.N. SATHY [LAWS(KER)-2024-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
IBRAHIM GULAM RASULBHAI LOTIWALA VS. FATEHMOMHHAD NOORMOHMMAD DHOLKAWALA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-627] [REFERRED TO]
VAIJAYANTABAI NAMDEO PATIL VS. NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-279] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL VINODBHAI KHODIDAS VS. PATEL PRAVINBHAI KACHARABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2021-3-347] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAPPA VS. M/S.REMCO (BHEL) HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-70] [REFERRED TO]
SREE SURYA DEVELOPERS VS. N. SAILESH PRASAD [LAWS(SC)-2021-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
AMITA JOSHI VS. SANDEEP KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-192] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. JAMNA DEVI VS. SMT. SARSWATI DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2018-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
HASHMUKHBHAI THAKORBHAI DESAI VS. BHIKHUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI DESAI [LAWS(GJH)-2022-8-435] [REFERRED TO]
IRASHAD HASHIMSAB NALABAND AND ORS. VS. SHIVAPPA VITTHAL LENDYAGOL AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Can the validity of a decree passed on a compromise be challenged in a separate suit is the short question that falls for determination in this appeal. It arises in the following circumstances:
(3.)The appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that gift- deed dated 12th August, 1982 executed by one Ramaiah was void and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from alienating the suit schedule property or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff. By its judgment and order dated 25th March, 1991, the Trial Court decreed the suit holding the gift-deed in question to be null and void, hence not binding on the plaintiff-appellant. Defendants No.2 and 3 in the said suit were also directed to demolish the building constructed in the schedule property and surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed against him the respondent filed RFA No.223 of 1991 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. According to the respondent a compromise petition was in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the parties before the High Court in the said appeal settling the dispute amicably. The appellant stoutly disputes that position and asserts that no such comprise was either needed nor was the same ever entered into between the parties. The appellant describes the so- called compromise deed as a forged and fabricated document. The appellant denies that he ever signed any such compromise petition or asked his advocate to file the same before the Court. Even so the High Court had proceeded on the basis that a compromise had indeed taken place between the parties in the light whereof the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents. The appellant's case is that order dated 1st August, 1995 passed by the High Court in RFa No. 223 of 1991 was the result of fraud played upon the High Court.
(2.)Can the validity of a decree passed on a compromise be challenged in a separate suit is the short question that falls for determination in this appeal. It arises in the following circumstances:
(3.)The appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that gift- deed dated 12th August, 1982 executed by one Ramaiah was void and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from alienating the suit schedule property or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff. By its judgment and order dated 25th March, 1991, the Trial Court decreed the suit holding the gift-deed in question to be null and void, hence not binding on the plaintiff-appellant. Defendants No.2 and 3 in the said suit were also directed to demolish the building constructed in the schedule property and surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed against him the respondent filed RFA No.223 of 1991 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. According to the respondent a compromise petition was in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the parties before the High Court in the said appeal settling the dispute amicably. The appellant stoutly disputes that position and asserts that no such comprise was either needed nor was the same ever entered into between the parties. The appellant describes the so- called compromise deed as a forged and fabricated document. The appellant denies that he ever signed any such compromise petition or asked his advocate to file the same before the Court. Even so the High Court had proceeded on the basis that a compromise had indeed taken place between the parties in the light whereof the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents. The appellant's case is that order dated 1st August, 1995 passed by the High Court in RFa No. 223 of 1991 was the result of fraud played upon the High Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.