Under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, what must a court satisfy itself of before passing a compromise decree?

That the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by a lawful agreement or compromise, in writing and signed by the parties, or that the defendant has satisfied the plaintiff in respect of the whole or part of the subject-matter. The Explanation makes clear that an agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is not lawful within the meaning of the rule. Once the Court passes a compromise decree after such satisfaction, the decree cannot be challenged in an appeal.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or. 23 rr. 3, 3A — Or. 2 r. 2 — s.96(3) — Compromise decree — Consent decree — Recall application — Res judicata — Joint family property — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or. 23 r. 3A — Compromise decree — Bar to a fresh suit — Held: No suit lies to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful; the only remedy is a recall application before the court which recorded the compromise. (¶11, 12) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or. 23 r. 3 — s.96(3) — Consent decree — Estoppel — Held further: Before passing a decree on a compromise the Court must satisfy itself that the suit has been adjusted by a lawful compromise; a consent decree then operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding until set aside by that court. (¶10, 12) Joint family property — Purchase in the name of a member from family funds — Held further: Property purchased in the name of a member out of family funds is joint family property, and a son whose interest was represented by his father in that partition cannot afterwards call the compromise an act of fraud. (¶7, 8) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or. 2 r. 2 — Res judicata — Re-agitating a partitioned claim — Held further: A later suit which omits properties that were part of the earlier suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2, and a claim to property already partitioned cannot be re-agitated; appeal dismissed. (¶14, 15)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of MANJUNATH TIRAKAPPA MALAGI AND ANR v. GURUSIDDAPPA TIRAKAPPA MALAGI (DEAD THROUGH LRS) — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India