Compromise Deed Affecting Rights Of Multiple Parties Must Reflect Voluntary & Informed Consent Of All To Be Legally Valid: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that any compromise deed affecting the rights and interests of multiple parties must reflect the voluntary and informed consent of all parties to attain legal sanction. 

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed; 

"For any compromise to attain legal sanctity and be binding upon the parties, it is imperative that all concerned parties, whose rights and interests are likely to be affected by such compromise, must voluntarily agree to its terms and signify their consent, preferably through their signatures on the compromise deed...The law does not recognize a partial compromise that seeks to bind some parties while excluding others who are equally interested and affected".

The four children of late Ambaram (Sayarbai, Sangeeta, Mangilal and Kamlabai) filed a suit seeking a declaration of title, partition, a permanent injunction, and a declaration of the Will (original Will) regarding a 4.397-hectare plot situated in the village of Nipawali in Dhar.

They claimed that their brother, Govind, allegedly obtained a bogus Will for the disputed plot by taking advantage of their father's poor health and registered it without anyone's knowledge. It was argued that despite their objection to the mutation, it was approved.

It contended that the land was ancestral and therefore, the father could not bequeath it unilaterally. It was asserted that the disputed land was already partitioned by the father among all heirs, and each party had separate possession of their share.

However, upon threats of dispossession by Govind, the siblings sought a declaration that the disputed Will was void and to recognize their 1/5th share. However, the siblings sought no relief against the State of MP, which remained a formal party without filing a reply. 

Govind's son asserted that Ambaram, in the presence of his children and other witnesses, executed the disputed Will in favour of Govind. It was further contended that Govind, during his lifetime, distributed the said land among his legal heirs, including his son, who now possessed and cultivated the land. 

The Trial Court held that the siblings were the rightful owners of 1/5th shares of the disputed land based on a document executed in their favour in June 2018 (original Will). The court had also declared the Will executed in favour of Govind (disputed Will) to be void. 

Aggrieved, Govind's son filed a second appeal before the First Appellate Court. He submitted that a mutual compromise was reached between him, Sayarbai, Sangeeta, and Kamlabai, who also confirmed that the disputed Will was executed in court. 

The Appellate Court, however, declared the disputed Will to be void and ordered partition of the entire property into 1/5 shares for each, disregarding the compromise reached between the parties.

Subsequently, he approached the High Court, claiming that both the Trial and First Appellant Courts failed to consider the compromise and overlooked the absence of evidence contesting the ability of the father to execute a Will. 

The High Court noted that the father, rather than signing the said Will, used his thumb impression. Additionally, Sayarbai and Sangeetabai, who were illiterate women from a rural background, also used thumb impressions over their signatures.

Conidering the rural status of the parties, the court held that it was held that genuineness and due execution of the disputed Will were not established.

Further, the court considered the testimony of these women, noting that the disputed Will was executed without their knowledge and under questionable circumstances. The women claimed that their counsel discovered the disputed Will while handling a mutation case filed by Govind. Both women, in their cross-examination statements, maintained that Govind took the father under the pretext of medical treatment and executed the Will secretly. Thus, the court held these unchallenged statements carried significant evidentiary value. 

The court also observed that the disputed Will was not proved under the mandatory requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section governs the legal validity of a Will, mandating attestation from at least one person who could be called for the purpose of proving its execution. 

"As per the settled legal principles, the burden of proof lies heavily on the beneficiary of the Will, in this case, Govind had to establish that the document was executed in accordance with law", the court noted. 

In the present matter, the court observed that Mangilal, who was a co-defendant whose rights were directly involved in the subject matter, was neither a party to the said compromise nor did he sign the compromise deed. Therefore, it was held that in the absence of his participation, the consent rendered in the compromise deed was incomplete and legally unenforceable. 

Emphasizing that a partial compromise seeking to bind some parties while executing others with equal rights is not recognized by law, the court held that in the absence of Mangilal's participation, the compromise deed could not gain legal sanction.

The petition was dismissed. 

Case Title: Govind Through Legal Representative v Sayarbai and others [S.A. No.2217/2025]

For Defendants: Advocate Sulabh Samaiya

Click here to read/download the Order