​Supreme Court Rules Legal Heirs Cannot Challenge Compromise Decree Without Original Party's Recall Application​

 

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified that legal heirs cannot independently challenge a compromise decree if the original party did not file a recall application. This decision reinforces the procedural framework under Order 23 Rule 3 and Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), emphasizing that the appropriate remedy against a compromise decree is a recall application filed by the party who consented to the decree.​

The case involved a dispute over the partition of joint family property. The appellants, legal heirs of the original party, contended that their father was coerced into a compromise, resulting in a consent decree that unfairly diminished their rightful share. They sought to declare the compromise deed null and void, alleging that it was improperly executed. However, the Supreme Court held that since the original party—their father—did not challenge the compromise decree during his lifetime, the legal heirs could not initiate a separate suit to set it aside.​

The Court referred to Order 23 Rule 3A of the CPC, which explicitly 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. This provision aims to prevent multiple litigations over the same matter and ensures that challenges to compromise decrees are addressed through recall applications filed in the same court that recorded the compromise.​

The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings. By affirming that only the original party to a compromise can file a recall application, the Court aims to maintain the finality of judicial decisions and prevent the reopening of settled matters through subsequent suits by legal heirs or other parties. This approach promotes legal certainty and upholds the integrity of the judicial process.​

Furthermore, the Court's decision aligns with the principle that statutory remedies provided under the CPC must be strictly adhered to. Allowing legal heirs to challenge a compromise decree without the original party's recall application would circumvent the procedural safeguards established by law. The ruling thus reinforces the necessity for parties to utilize the specific remedies prescribed by the CPC when seeking to contest judicial decisions.​

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarifies that legal heirs cannot independently challenge a compromise decree if the original party did not file a recall application. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms established under the CPC, ensuring that challenges to compromise decrees are addressed appropriately and that the finality of judicial decisions is preserved.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community