AMRO DEVI & ORS. versus JULFI RAM (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.

AMRO DEVI & ORS. versus JULFI RAM (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.

The Court held that the order dated 20.08.1984 did not constitute a valid compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC because there was no written compromise signed and proved; mere statements recorded before the appellate court were insufficient. Consequently Order XXIII Rule 3A was irrelevant. Further, the sale deed dated 22.08.1983 executed prior to the alleged compromise was not hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in the facts of the case, and the trial court decree dismissing the suit was to be confirmed.

Parties
Appellant: Amro Devi & Ors.; Respondent: Julfi Ram (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 7791 of 2024 / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment (final Disposal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Compromise Decree, Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, Order XXIII Rule 3 a CPC, Lis Pendens, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sale Deed Pendente Lite, Declaration and Permanent Injunction
Civil Procedure Property Law Compromise Decree Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC Order XXIII Rule 3 a CPC Lis Pendens Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sale Deed Pendente Lite +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amro Devi & Ors.

Appellant

Julfi Ram (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 7791 of 2024 / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment (final Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order dated 20.08.1984 in the earlier appeal constituted a valid compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC
  2. 2 Whether the sale deed executed on 22.08.1983 is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens / Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the order dated 20.08.1984 did not constitute a valid compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC because there was no written compromise signed and proved; mere statements recorded before the appellate court were insufficient. Consequently Order XXIII Rule 3A was irrelevant. Further, the sale deed dated 22.08.1983 executed prior to the alleged compromise was not hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in the facts of the case, and the trial court decree dismissing the suit was to be confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders passed by the High Court and the first Appellate Court are set aside
  • Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 19.12.1992 dismissing the suit is confirmed