9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the allegations that the defendant is living all alone and has been looked after by the plaintiff. He was in need of ₹ 1 lakh in the month of June, 1988, which was advanced by the plaintiff on the understanding that in lieu of money the house of the defendant stood sold. It was also understood that if the aforesaid sum of ₹ 1 lakh is not returned within a period of five years, there would be a sale deed in pursuance of the understanding arrived at between the parties in the month of June, 1988. The defendant has failed to return the money within the aforesaid period and has executed a registered Will deed dated 25.1.1995 in his favour on the assurance that there would be no further demand for refund of money from the plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not sign the said compromise nor ever agreed to it. The appellant No. 2 namely Smt. Vandana Devi Sharma claimed the property in question on the basis of earlier sale deeds executed on 15.9.1995 and 29.10.1992 by the defendant Om Prakash. Smt. Vandana Devi Sharma also claimed that she is in possession of the house in question in pursuance of the aforesaid sale deeds and submitted that the compromise decree dated 27.11.1997, is liable to be set aside as the vendor namely defendant had already sold the disputed property to her through the aforesaid two sale deeds. 5. The court below by the order under appeal has allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter of interpretation. One view was that the agreements which are void under Section 19A of the Contract Act are not excluded. This was the view of the Allahabad, Calcutta, Madras and Kerala High Courts. A contrary view was taken by Bombay and Nagpur High Courts. To set it at rest, the said controversy, an explanation has been added to the Rule to clarify the position. The said "explanation" reads as follows: An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1972 (Act No. 9 of 1972), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this Rule. 8. From the averments made in the plaint, it is clear beyond doubt that the plaintiff is not owner of the house in question. He, rather has admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wari Lai v. Smt. Chando Devi AIR1993SC1139 . It has been held that where a challenge to the compromise petition is made, an application can be filed under Proviso to Order XXIII, Rule 3 of C.P.C. or an appeal under Section 96(1), C.P.C. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: 13. When the amending Act introduced a proviso alongwith an Explanation to Rule 3 of Order XXIII saying that where it is alleged by one party and denied by other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, "the Court shall decide the question", the Court before which a petition of compromise is filed and which has recorded such compromise, has to decide the question whether an adjustment or satisfaction had been arrived at on basis of any la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
