1932 (10) TMI 14 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the compromise agreement.
2. Whether the compromise was obtained by fraud or undue influence.
3. Whether the compromise was lawful and enforceable.
4. Whether the compromise needed registration.
5. Whether the compromise was binding on all parties involved.
6. Whether the compromise was void due to lack of specific enforceability.
7. Whether the compromise was void due to the executor's inability to create a charge without probate court permission.
8. Whether the compromise was void due to uncertainty of terms.
9. Whether the compromise was affected by res judicata.
10. Whether the compromise was waived by the defendant.
11. Costs and cross-objections.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Compromise Agreement:
The court found that the terms of the compromise mentioned in the petition were those agreed upon between the parties. The rival terms alleged by the plaintiff were not proven. The compromise was entered into willingly by the plaintiff, who understood all the terms and was not under any deception or undue influence.

2. Fraud or Undue Influence:
The court concluded that no fraud or undue influence was practiced upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff had the capacity and intelligence to understand the terms of the compromise, and she willingly entered into the agreement. The plaintiff was advised by her legal advisors and family members, and she had ample opportunity to understand the terms.

3. Lawfulness and Enforceability:
The compromise was found to be lawful and enforceable. The court held that an executable decree could be passed based on the compromise, and it did not contravene Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The court also held that the contract to compromise a suit is specifically enforceable in the suit itself under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. Registration of the Compromise:
The court held that the petition of compromise did not require registration under the Registration Act. The petition did not itself create or extinguish any rights but enabled the parties to obtain a decree from the court, which would create or extinguish the rights.

5. Binding Nature on All Parties:
The compromise was found to be binding on the parties involved. The court held that a compromise with some of the defendants is not illegal, even if the plaintiff proceeds with the suit against other defendants.

6. Specific Enforceability:
The court held that the compromise was not void due to lack of specific enforceability. The court distinguished between the specific performance of the contract to compromise the suit and the specific performance of the obligations arising from the compromise decree. The court held that the terms of the compromise were enforceable, and the court could pass a decree based on the compromise.

7. Executor's Inability to Create Charge:
The court held that the compromise was not void due to the executor's inability to create a charge without probate court permission. The executor was fully empowered to compromise the suit, and even if such permission was necessary, the transaction would only be voidable at the option of a person interested in the property, who in this case was a party to the compromise.

8. Uncertainty of Terms:
The court found that the essential terms of the compromise were neither vague nor uncertain. The terms about Suraj Mohan being obedient and the expenditure of interest on arrears of maintenance were found to be unenforceable but severable from the rest of the contract.

9. Res Judicata:
The court held that the inquiry into the genuineness and validity of the compromise was not barred by res judicata. The order of the previous court did not preclude the trial court from entering into the question of compromise.

10. Waiver by Defendant:
The court found no evidence of waiver by the defendant. The defendant consistently maintained that the compromise should be recorded and did not abandon the compromise.

11. Costs and Cross-Objections:
The court allowed the cross-objection of the respondent Suraj Mohan regarding the costs. The court awarded costs to Suraj Mohan, considering the protracted litigation and the plaintiff's conduct in unnecessarily prolonging the case. The court fixed the hearing fee at Rs. 5,000, out of which Rs. 250 would go to the respondents who are the heirs of Mr. Savi, deceased, and the remaining Rs. 4,750 to respondent Suraj Mohan.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the order recording the compromise with costs and allowed the cross-objection of the respondent Suraj Mohan regarding the costs.