The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a civil dispute initiated in 2003 by Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi and another appellant, seeking to declare a compromise decree dated 18.01.2000 as null and void. The decree in question had partitioned 7 acres of land—alleged to be ancestral—among the appellants’ father, grandfather, and uncles based on a settlement recorded in a 1999 suit (O.S. No. 58/1999). The judgement was delivered by the bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The appellants contended that the land was not ancestral but instead individually owned by their father, having been purchased by their grandmother in his name. They alleged that their father had colluded with other family members and entered into the compromise to deprive them of their rightful share.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the High Court upheld the decision by an order dated 23.09.2022. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
- Whether the appellants could challenge the 2000 compromise decree through a separate suit.
- Whether the 7 acres of land in question formed part of the ancestral joint family property.
- Whether the earlier suit was barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2, Order 23 Rule 3A of the CPC, and the principle of res judicata.
Arguments
Appellants:
The appellants claimed the 7 acres of land were not part of the ancestral property and that the compromise decree was obtained fraudulently. They also argued that they were not made parties to the 1999 suit and therefore had the right to challenge the decree through a new suit.
Respondents:
The respondents argued that the appellants’ interests were represented by their father in the original suit. They submitted that the suit was barred under Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC, and that the Trial Court and High Court had rightly held that the compromise decree could not be challenged in a separate proceeding.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to prove that the 7 acres of land were not joint family property. The Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court that although the land was purchased in the name of the appellants’ father, it was bought using joint family funds and was therefore part of the joint family estate.
The Court emphasized that a compromise decree cannot be challenged through a fresh suit due to the express bar under Order 23 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It cited with approval the precedent laid down in Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 566, stating:
“A consent decree operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding unless it is set aside by the court which passed the consent decree, by an order on an application under the proviso to Rule 3 Order 23.”
The Court explained that the only valid remedy against a compromise decree is a recall application filed before the court that passed it. Since the appellants’ father never challenged the compromise and had instead benefited from it, the appellants could not reopen the matter now.
The Court also observed that:
“If the father of the appellants has no grievance against the consent decree, then we are unable to understand how the appellants can be allowed to challenge it.”
Additionally, the Court found that the fresh suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and the doctrine of constructive res judicata, as the issues had already been decided in earlier proceedings.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment dated 23.09.2022. The Court concluded:
“In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order… Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.”
The Court also vacated interim orders, if any, and disposed of all pending applications.
Case Title: Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi and Anr. vs. Gurusiddappa Tirakappa Malagi (Dead through LRs)
