Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does an appeal lie against a consent decree?
Coram: Sudhanshu Dhulia; Ahsanuddin Amanullah
No. Section 96(3) contains a specific bar, so no appeal is maintainable against a consent decree, and none is maintainable against the order of the court recording or refusing to record a compromise in view of the deletion of clause (m) of Rule 1 of Order 43. A consent decree operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding unless it is set aside by the court which passed it, because it is nothing but a contract between parties superimposed with the seal of approval of the court.
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.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India