Compromise Decree Obtained Without Impleading Necessary Party Is Nullity : Supreme Court
The affected party is entitled to seek recall of the compromise decreee which was obtained behind their back.
A compromise decree obtained in a suit for partition of coparcenary property without impleading the necessary party is a nullity; thus the omitted necessary party is entitled to file a recall application against the compromise decree before the court that passed it, observed the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard a case where the Appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased daughter of a property owner, who died intestate, sought 1/4th equal shares in the property of their maternal grandfather, as per the Hindu Succession Act, being devolved equally amongst his four children, including the Appellant's deceased mother.
A compromise decree was passed by the Telangana High Court based on a compromise entered between the parties, after the rounds of a litigation before the trial court, but the Appellants being legal heirs of the deceased daughter of the property owner remained unimpleaded during the entire litigation.
Aggrieved by a compromise decree passed by the High Court, and findings that the remedy available to the appellants against the compromise decree would be to file a separate suit or an appeal to the higher court after seeking leave of the court, led to filing of an appeal before the Supreme Court by the legal heirs, claiming them to be a necessary party to the outcome of the lis, which was ignored by the High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court found the High Court's approach to decline the Appellant's recall application against the compromise decree erroneou.
“The compromise decree obtained by the brothers/legal heirs being the plaintiffs and the defendants without impleading Late Smt. Ballo Bai or her legal heirs, despite her being a necessary party to the suit, was a nullity in the eyes of law.”, the Court said, emphasising that even the bar contained under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC would not operate against the compromise decree passed in disregard to the law.
Order 23 Rule 3A bars fresh suit against the compromise decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was unlawful.
“By no stretch of imagination could Late Smt. Ballo Bai and her legal heirs be treated as strangers to the lis and thus they could not be disentitled from challenging the compromise and to seek recall of a decree obtained behind their back by virtue of the bar contained under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC.”, the Court said.
As a result, the appeal was allowed, remitting the matter to the High Court to reconsider the recall applications afresh in light of the observations made hereinabove.
Cause Title: GEETA BAI & ORS. VERSUS K. ARJUN SINGH & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1004
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Mr. P. Vamshi Rao, Adv. Ms. Rao Vishwaja- 4027, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. (Not Present) Ms. A. Chaya Devi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Santhana Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Udhayan Krishna G., Adv. Mr. Tarurag Gaur, Adv. Mr. A. Padmachary, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh- 2265, AOR Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Arora, Adv. Mr. Tridev Sagar, Adv. M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co- 1336, AOR Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni- 1685, AOR Mr. Sanjay Sigh, Adv. Ms. Sneha Mathew, Adv. Ms. Ankita Gupta- 3391, AOR Mr. Avishkar Singvi, Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker- 2815, AOR Mr. Shivam Kunal, Adv. Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv. Mr. Ayush Yashaswi, Adv. Ms. Jaslene Ahluwalia, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Raman, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Jayasimha, Adv. Ms. Grahita Agarwal, Adv. Mr. I.v.sai Nikhil, Adv. Mr. Dandu Laxman, Adv. Mr. Tushar Gadia, Adv. Mr. Suryansh Jamwal, Adv. Mr. B.yeshwanth Raj, Adv.