Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. On the aforesaid pleadings the trial court framed the following issues:

Recasted Addl. Issues framed on 28-6-2000
1. Whether the defendant No. 1 proves that the relief prayed in that suit is relating to the execution of the decree passed in RSA.707/72 hence the suit is harred under Section 47 and Order 21 Rule 97 to 104?
2. Whether the defendant No. 1 proves that the decree in RSA 707/72 is passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnatala. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to go into the questioning of its validity?
3. Whether the defendant No. 1 proves that defendant No. 2 who is a party to the suit in RSA 707/ 72 has not challenged the decree passed in RSA 707/72 and therefore, the plaintiff cannot challenge the same?
4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in this suit, since the plaintiff has raised the same contention in Execution 166/78 by filing protest application?
5. Whether the defendant No. 1 proves that the compromise entered between the defendant No. 1 and 2 is just and binding on the plaintiff?
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff harred by law of limitation?
7. Whether the plaintiff proves that the compromise entered into between the defendant No. 1 and 2 in RSA 707/72 is void as per Order 23 Rule 3(b) CPC?

7. The plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and produced 24 documents which are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-24. On behalf of the defendants, first defendant was examined as DW-1 and 30 documents, were produced which are marked as Exs D-1 to D-30.

8. The trial court on consideration of the aforesaid coral and documentary evidence on record held that the plaintiff utterly failed to prove that the compromise and the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in RSA No. 707 of 72 are illegal and arbitrary in law. He has also failed to prove that the compromise is against the provisions of law under Order 23 Rule 3B of C.P.C. Coming to the said conclusion the trial count has held that the suit schedule properties are not joint family properties, hut it is the sole acquisition of the second defendant in which the plaintiff has no right at all. Further it held the second defendant has failed to prove that after purchasing the suit schedule property as well as the other two properties, he has invented lot of money in lakhs of rupees for the development of the said property. It also held that the first defendant had complied with the compromise terms in so far as payment of Rs. 15,000/- within the stipulated time and did not commit any default It further hold that the suit is maintainable and the findings recorded Under Section 47 r/w Order 21 Rule 97 & 98 would not operate as resjudicats in view of Rule 104 of C.F.C. It also held the suit of the plaintiff is not barred by law of limitation. The Civil Court has jurisdiction. The compromise decree passed by the High Court can also be challenged before the Civil Court. Therefore it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and imposed costs of Rs. 500/-.

14. From the aforesaid material on record and the contentions urged in this appeal the substantial questions of low that arise for consideration are as under:

1] Whether non-raising of an issue regarding the nature of the suit schedule property, hut recording a. finding regarding the nature of the property by the courts below on the evidence on record, has vitiated the judgment and decree passed by the Court below?
2] Whether the suit filed by the first defendant against the second defendant in O.S. No. 454/1967 in which compromise was recorded in RSA. No. 707/72 is a suit filed in a representative capacity so as to attract the compliance of the obligations under Order 23 Rule 3[b] CPC, and for non-compliance of the same is it void?