Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (1) TMI 429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Munsif, and held that the suit filed by the Appellant was not maintainable being barred in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The Appellant filed a suit ( No. 43 of 1980) in the court of Munsif, Karwi (Banda) seeking a declaration that the decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Class-I, in a suit under Sections 176, 178 and 182 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was fraudulent, inoperative and not binding upon him. According to the Appellant, the Defendants had instituted the suit before the Assistant Collector in which his father namely Chunkai was made as one of the opposite party. In that suit, a compromise petition was filed on October 7, 1971 with the fake signature of Chunkai and on t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the allegation that the decree passed by the Assistant Collector was based on a fraudulent compromise petition and it did not involve any adjudication of rights or interests in the agricultural lands. Hence, the suit was maintainable before a civil court. It, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Munsif and directed him to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 5. When the matter came before the Munsif on remand, the Defendants once again objected to the maintainability of the suit, this time raising the contention that it was barred under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Munsif by his order dated January 7, 1988 dismissed the objection and found and held that the suit was maintai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allenging the compromise to question the same before the court which had recorded the compromise in question. That court was enjoined to decide the controversy whether the parties have arrived at an adjustment in a lawful manner. The explanation made it clear that an agreement or a compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of the said rule. Having introduced the proviso along with the explanation in Rule 3 in order to avoid multiplicity of suit and prolonged litigation, a specific bar was prescribed by Rule 3-A in respect of institution of a separate suit for setting aside a decree on basis of a compromise saying: 3-A. Bar to suit.- No suit shall lie to set aside a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e which it is alleged by one of the parties to the alleged compromise that no such compromise had been entered between the parties that court has to decide whether the agreement or compromise in question was lawful and not void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act. If the agreement or the compromise itself is fraudulent then it shall be deemed to be void within the meaning of the explanation to the proviso to Rule 3 and as such not lawful. The learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in entertaining the application filed on behalf of the Appellant and considering the question as to whether there had been a lawful agreement or compromise on the basis of which the court could have recorded such agreement or compromise on Februar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he proceedings under the Act. 10. Though the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable to the proceedings under the Act but that would not make the authorities specified under Schedule II to the Act as 'court' under the Code and those authorities shall continue to be courts of limited and restricted jurisdiction. 11. We are of the view that Revenue courts are neither equipped nor competent to effectively adjudicate on allegations of fraud that has overtones of criminality and the courts really skilled and experienced to try such issues are the courts constituted under the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. It is also well settled that under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, the civil court has inherent juris .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates