Revision petition challenging dismissal of suit challenging compromise decree. Court held Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC bars suits by existing parties but not by non-parties not involved in original compromise. Dismissed without admitting revision.
Civil revision petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.No.5052 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.5052 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.28338 of 2024
1.M.Subramani
2.Palani 3.Chinnadurai 4.Annamalai .. Petitioners
vs
Dhanalakshmi .. Respondent
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the decreetal order dated 31.07.2024 in I.A.No.826 of 2023 in O.S.No.141 of 2023 on the file of Sub Judge at Gingee, Villupuram District.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.J.Mohamed Kassim
ORDER
This civil revision petition challenges the order of learned Subordinate Judge at Gingee in I.A.No.826 of 2023 in O.S.No.141 of 2023 dated 31.07.2024.
1/6
C.R.P.No.5052 of 2024
2/6
C.R.P.No.5052 of 2024
themselves. Therefore, they entered into a verbal/oral partition. Pursuant to the oral partition, each of them had obtained properties listed out in the aforesaid schedules. They pleaded that as the matter has already been compromised in terms of the decree passed in O.S. No.124 of 2015, the suit is barred by virtue of order XXIII Rule 3A of The Code of Civil Procedure. Hence they filed an application for rejection of plaint.
to the compromise decree and therefore the decree is not binding on her. In addition, she pleaded that whether the partition had taken place between the brothers or whether the property continued to be unpartitioned are all matters which had to be gone into only at the time of trial.
the plaintiff and dismissed the petition. Hence, this revision.
petitioners.
3/6
C.R.P.No.5052 of 2024
analysed the submissions of Mr.A.J.Mohamed Kassim.
4/6
C.R.P.No.5052 of 2024
lawful, then, a suit will not lie to reopen the same by citing a suit to declare it to be unlawful. This is the purpose of Order XXIII Rule 3A C.P.C. In other words, Order XXIII Rule 3A C.P.C. does not bar a party from presenting the suit to challenge a compromise decree, when he or she, is not a party to the said document or the decree.
21.12.2024
Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No mmi
To
The Subordinate Judge, Gingee, Villupuram.
5/6
C.R.P.No.5052 of 2024
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
mmi
C.R.P.No.5052 of 2024
21.12.2024
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC bars a suit challenging a compromise decree where the challenger was not a party to the original compromise.
Whether a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution should be dismissed.
Whether an oral partition between family members is contested by a new suit by an excluded heir.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Subramani
Palani Chinnadurai
Annamalai
Dhanalakshmi
V. Lakshminarayan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
