PARTITION DECREE IS PASSED ON THE BASIS OF COMPROMISE,IT IS FINAL DECREE

Citation 

(2012) 3 SCC 548

CDN 2012 SC 166

2012(2) CTC 881 

Bimal Kumar & Anr. vs Shakuntala Debi & Ors

Head note

Limitation Act – Article 136 – Execution of compromise decree. The latter suit filed by the appellants was for partition and declaring the ex parte compromise decree as null and void. There was no stay of the earlier judgment or any proceedings emanating therefrom. In the absence of any interdiction from any court, the decree-holder was entitled to execute the decree. It needs no special emphasis to state that there was no impediment or disability in the way of the respondents to execute the decree but the same was not done. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that the initiation of execution proceedings was indubitably barred by limitation.

Cases Referred:
Bharti Devi v. Fagu Mahto (2009 (3) JLJR 90 : AIR 2010 Jhar 10
Rachakonda Venkat Rao And Others v. R. Satya Bai (D) by L.R. And Another (AIR 2003 SC 3322 : 2003 7 SCC 452
Muzaffar Husain v. Sharafat Hussain (AIR 1933 Oudh 562
Thiruvengadathamiah v. Mungiah ((1912) ILR 35 Mad 26
Raghubir Sahu v. Ajodhya Sahu (AIR 1945 Pat 482)
Renu Devi v. Mahendra Singh and others (AIR 2003 SC 1608)
Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad and others ((2007) 2 SCC 355)
Bikoba Deora Gaikwad and others v. Hirabai Marutirao Ghorgare and others ((2008) 8 SCC 198)
Dr. Chiranji Lal (D) by LRs. v. Hari Das (D) By LRs., ((2005) 10 SCC 746)
Yeshwant Deorao Deshmukh v. Walchand Ramchand Kothari [1950 SCR 852 : AIR 1951 SC 16)
Ram Bachan Rai and others v. Ram Udar Rai and others ((2006) 9 SCC 446)
Ratan Singh v. Vijay Singh and Ors. (2000 (8) SCALE 214
Manohar v. Jaipalsing (AIR 2008 SC 429)

Comparative Citations:
2012 (3) SCC 548, 2012 (2) CTC 881, 2012 (3) MLJ 805, 2012 (2) KLT 18 (SN) (C.No.17), 2012 (3) LW 1, 2012 (4) SCJ 209, 2012 AIR(SC) 1586, 2012 AIR(SCW) 2091, 2012 (3) KCCR 128 (SN), 2012 (1) CLT 351, 2012 (2) SLT 389, 2012 CutLT(Suppl) 465, 2012 (2) CivCC 770, 2012 (2) WBLR 689,

Judgment

It is to be borne in mind that the term `compromise' essentially means settlement of differences by mutual consent. In such process, the adversarial claims come to rest. The cavil between the parties is given a decent burial. A compromise which is arrived at by the parties puts an end to the litigative battle. Sometimes the parties feel that it is an unfortunate bitter struggle and allow good sense to prevail to resolve the dispute. In certain cases, by intervention of well-wishers, the conciliatory process commences and eventually, by consensus and concurrence, rights get concretised. A reciprocal settlement with a clear mind is regarded as noble. It signifies magnificent and majestic facets of the human mind. The exalted state of affairs brings in quintessence of sublime solemnity and social stability. In the present case, as the factual matrix would reveal, a decree came to be passed on the bedrock of 

a compromise in entirety from all angles leaving nothing to be done in the future. The curtains were really drawn and -

the Court gave the stamp of approval to the same. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that the compromise decree dated 03.04.1964 was a final decree.

Supreme Court of India

Bimal Kumar & Anr. vs Shakuntala Debi & Ors. on 27 February, 2012