Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Shri K. C. Puri, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, has fairly admitted on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record that fraud, misrepresentation or coercion in obtaining the consent decree is not established. All the same, he has argued both the points, as noticed in the opening part of the judgment. We advert to these points one by one.

8. Shri K. C. Puri, Advocate, has argued that even if the consent decree was not obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or coercion, since it was not registered, it could not be received in evidence. If it is not received in evidence, the defendants had no title in the property and the suit is to be decreed. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the compromise or consent decree requires registration.

18. The facts on which we are considering the case, there is no prohibition in suffering the consent decree. Rather Section 17(i)(b) of the Registration Act clearly envisages other instruments by which title can be created and by virtue of Section 17(2)(vi) if title is created by consent decree, which forms subject matter of dispute in the suit, such a consent decree is saved from registration. Hence, we conclude that reference to Amar Singh's case (AIR 1974 SC 994) (supra) was not called for. We are left with no option but to overrule the decision in Ranbir Singh's case (1984 Pun LJ 562) (supra).

25. Apart from the above, there is an additional ground in favour of minors or persons of unsound mind, if they are able to prove that the next friend or the guardian who acted on their behalf was, negligent in conducting the proceedings.

26. Now we advert to the facts of the case. In the earlier suit, which culminated in a compromise decree, the plea taken up by the plaintiff of that suit was that the defendant had gifted the land to them 10/12 years ago and a week before the filing of the suit illegally took possession. The plaintiff claimed decree of possession as owners. Instead of contesting the suit, the defendant put in a written compromise before the Court in which he agreed that the plaintiffs are the owners and also agreed that a decree for possession be passed. The effort of the heirs of the previous defendant in the subsequent suit was to show that the previous defendant had not made any gift 10/12 years prior to the filing of the earlier suit. Such a matter will not fall within the meaning of 'fraud', 'misrepresentation'. 'misunderstanding' or 'mistake'. The defendant of the previous suit fully knew the facts of the case and the effect of the compromise decree. If with open eyes and after fully understanding the pros and cons of the facts of the case, he enters into compromise with the plaintiffs either to accept that they are owners for the last 10/12 years or creates title for the first time, such a decree would bind the parties and their privies, and it will not be open to the heirs of such a defendant in the subsequent litigation to challenge the facts contained in the plaint, by saying that they were wrong because the basis of the challenge can only be if in obtaining the consent decree there was fraud, misrepresentation, misunderstanding or mistake. If basis for reopening the decree is not made out, by merely saying that no gift was made 10/12 years before the earlier litigation it will not give a cause for filing of second suit and reopening of the consent decree. Assuming for the sake of arguments, that no gift was made by the defendants of the previous suit in favour of the plaintiffs of the previous suit 10/12 years prior to that suit, but the defendant willingly and voluntarily considered the claim of the plaintiff by filing a written compromise, that decree will bind the heirs of that defendant and second suit would not be competent. On this process of reasoning we hold that the consent decree cannot be sought to be reopened and the Courts will have no jurisdiction to go behind the consent decree to find out whether the facts contained in the plaint, which ultimately culminated in the decree, were right or wrong.

27. For the reasons recorded above, we hold :

i) that a compromise or consent decree does not require registration, even if it creates title in respect of immoveable property of the value of Rs. 100/- or more, provided it is subject matter of suit.
ii) that a compromise or consent decree can be got set aside on one of the grounds on which a contract can be set aside, namely, if obtained by 'fraud; 'misrepresentation', or 'coercion', with an additional ground in favour of the minors or persons of unsound mind, if they are able to prove that the next friend or the guardian, who acted on their behalf, was negligent in concluding the proceedings. If none of these grounds is established, the Courts in a subsequent suit will have no jurisdiction to go behind the consent decree to find out whether the facts stated in the plaint, which culminated into compromise decree were right or wrong.