This appeal has been filed before the Honorable Supreme Court pursuing to the question which was raised before the court was can a stranger to a suit can challenge the compromise decree by filing another suit in the court of law. The appellant herein filed a suit before a judge pleading that the decision provided by the High Court Judge has been obtaining by submission of some fraudulent documents and so such order or decree is a miscarriage of justice. The Honorable High Court has proceeded with the matter by the facts presented before such court but the appeal here is made with a plea that an order which is provided on the basis of misrepresentation should be inoperative as such order will be against the objective of the proceedings.

Further, the appellant also pleaded to pass an injunction order against the then defendants now respondents for entering in the suit property which being in peaceful possession of the then plaintiff herein appellants. The matter facts are that there was a land in the name of Lakhan Singh as it already been mentioned in the schedule 1 of the complaint filed and after the death of the owner, he had three sons i.e. Din Dayal Singh, Jalim Singh and Kunjan Singh. The 1^st son name Din Dayal Sing also died issueless during the time of his father’s lifetime and the second son Jalim Singh died after that leaving behind two daughters and a son i.e. Sampatiya, Soniya and Ram Nath Singh respectively. The third son of the Lakhan Singh died issueless after the death of Jalim Singh but before he died he gifted his share of land to Sampatiya by creating a gift deed in her favour which later came to her possession on the date 10^th July, 1978. Further, one lady name Salehri claims to be the daughter of the Kunjan Singh and filed a petition in the munsif court setting aside the gift deed and claiming here share in the ancestral property. Ram Nath Singh died during the pendency of the suit and the suit was only contested by the daughter Sampatiya and later to that, the suit was dismissed in favour of the daughter with the reason that the petitioner could not prove her claim to be the daughter of the Kunjan Singh Sampatiya. Later the daughter Sampatiya sold the area of land by way of sale deed that was around 3Bigha 6Katha 3Dhurs to the appellant herein on the date of 6^th January, 1984. The appellant took over the possession of the suit property on the same date for INR 25,000/-. In July of 1995 when the respondents herein started interfering in the suit property it was later discovered that such property was later at the strength of the compromise decree between the appellant and respondents.

1. Whether the matter was misrepresented?
2. Whether there should be any injunction order passed in this behalf?
3. Whether the matter heard by the High Court did not cover all its aspects?

The Honorable Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsels representing both the parties in the matter above and considering the facts and the precedents submitted established by the Honorable Judges to support the prayers and pleadings of the parties in the matter above states its observation herein that states In the matter herein it was established that there were significant questions that were answered by the Honorable Trail Court and the court appreciates the findings made by the trial court however it will be at par with the justice only when the interpretation played a major role in its entirety. The court after considering the facts has made an analysis that the issues no 4 and 5 as mentioned in the matter by the trial court were overlooked by the trial court and the matter was decided against the plaintiff/appellant and that the precise question to be dealt by this court is the maintainability of the suit filed with the High Court is in compliance with the orders and provision mentioned under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The court also finds it satisfying that in a compromise decree if one party alleges for the compromise decree and other party alleges or claims against the compromise decree the matter should be dealt with and according to law.

The Court also found it difficult that there should be no adjournment in the matter of compromise unless otherwise, it is in the interest of the parties. In the above case, the court finds it surprising that the suit was instituted in the year 1995 and after that 25 years has passed since the sale deed has been entered by the appellant and the respondent, and as the Trial Court has already receded the finding with references to the issues regarding the right, title and the interest of the suit property against the appellant herein was taken on the basis of the stated sale deed as presented before the magistrate on the day of 6^th of January, 1984 and such deed was not interfered by the Court of Appeal, even when the appeal was been made by the appellant herein before the court. The Court finds no reason to remit the matter back to Trail court for further examination and reconsideration of the legality of the sale deed just at the instance of the appeal that has been filed by the appellant herein. The sale deed that was executed 25 years back where the party to such deed has now filed an appeal stating there was a misrepresentation has no locus standii. The Court also finds that there will be no more appropriation and diversions in the finding if the Court even though the matter if remitted.

The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the appeal filed herein is without any substance and should be rightly dismissed. The appeals stand dismissed without any cost. The Court also states that if there should be any appeals pending relevant or related to this appeal, it should also stand disposed of accordingly.

Case No.: CA 3961 of 2020

Date: 06/05/2020