Legal Heirs' Suit Against Compromise Decree Not Maintainable When Original Party Didn't File Recall Application : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court yesterday (April 21) reiterated that the only option to assail the correctness of the compromise decree passed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is to file a recall application.

“The only remedy against a compromise decree is to file a recall application.”, the court said.

Holding thus, the Court dismissed an appeal where the Appellants were aggrieved by the impugned decision dismissing their suit to declare the compromise deed as null and void. The Court relied upon Order 23 Rule 3A CPC, which states that “no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.”

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a case in which the Appellant challenged a compromise decree related to the partition of joint family property registered in the name of the Appellant's father.

The Appellant contended that the compromise deed had been improperly executed, alleging that their father was coerced into agreeing to the compromise, which concerned what the Appellant claimed was his self-acquired property. As a result, the Appellant argued that their rightful share in the partition had been unfairly reduced.

Affirming the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Dhulia noted that only the Appellants' father could have filed a recall application against the compromise decree, and since the no challenge was made by the Appellants father, therefore the filing of suit by the appellants to set aside the compromise decree was rightly dismissed through the impugned decision.

“Thus, even if we accept the contention of the appellants that their father was coerced by his brothers and father (appellants' grandfather) to enter into a compromise, which led to the passing of the consent decree, a fresh suit is still not a valid remedy. In that situation, the appellants' father should have filed a recall application before the Court that had passed the decree. The appellants' father has never done so! Moreover, he had admitted the consent decree and never questioned its validity.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: MANJUNATH TIRAKAPPA MALAGI AND ANR Versus GURUSIDDAPPA TIRAKAPPA MALAGI (DEAD THROUGH LRS)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 446

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.M. Angadi, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanket M. Yenagi, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR

Related : Order 23 Rule 3 CPC | Only Remedy Against Compromise Decree Is Recall Application Before Court Which Recorded Compromise : Supreme Court