TMI Blog1985 (6) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rao plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit -O. S No. 192/77 for partition and possession of his 5/8th share in the suit property. Later on a joint Memo signed by all the parties and their advocates was filed in the suit on 21-9-1979 stating that the plaintiff Krishnaswamy Rao was entitled to 5/8th share and each of defendants 1 to 3 was entitled to 1/8th share. Accordingly, a preliminary decree in terms of the joint Memo was ordered to be drawn up on 21-9-1979. Thereafter an application for final decree in F.D.P. No. 18/80 was filed by the plaintiff on 16-8-1980. The present revision petitioner-defendant 2 appeared in the decree final proceedings and consented on 13-2-1981 to the appointment of a Commissioner. The Court fixed 18-2-1981 for i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be lawful within the meaning of Order 23 Rule 3A C.P.C. 7. It thus becomes crystal clear that now a suit to question the compromise decree on the ground that it is unlawful is barred. If a suit is barred, can it be said that the party has no right to question the compromise decree either on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation. O. 47 R. 1 C.P.C. reads as:- Application for review of judgment: (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the disco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of -the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The learned author Shri Mulla has enumerated a list of various cases in which the Court would be justified in invoking the inherent jurisdiction under S. 151 C.P.C. The learned author Shri Mulla has stated in his C.P.C. 14th Edn. Vol. 1, page 792 at S1. No. 29 as : - to set aside an order recording compromise obtained by fraud. The learned author Shri Mulla has referred to Bindeswari Prasad v. Debendra Prasad AIR1958Pat618 . It has been laid down in Bindeswari Prasad v. Debendra Prasad AIR1958Pat618 as : - Where fraud is practised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, it would be too much to say that the Court did not give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to lead evidence. Therefore the said argument advanced by the learned counsel Shri Babu is rejected. 10. The suit O. S. No. 192/77 for partition and separate possession was filed in 1977. A joint Memo signed by the present revision petitioner and all other parties and their respective advocates was presented in the Court on 21-9-1979. It was recorded by the Court. A preliminary decree in terms of the compromise was prepared on 21-9-1979. An application in final decree F.D.P. No. 18/80 was presented in Court on 16-9-1980 i.e. nearly one year after the compromise preliminary decree was drawn. On 13-2-1981 the present revision petitioner-de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f or dumb and that she did not hear when the Court read out the same to her. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Court below rightly held that the plea of fraud and misrepresentation is not at all supported by any circumstances, much less, by any evidence much less, by any evidence on record. Therefore, the lower Court was justified in dismissing I. A. No. 3. 11. Further it can be seen with advantage that before the suit was instituted, the plaintiff had given a notice to his sister defendant 2 informing that it was the ancestral property left by their father and that he had got 5/8th share and that the present revision petitioner had got 1/8th share and the other sister had got 1/8th share and the mother had got 1/8th share. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
