Consent terms can be entered into between some of the parties
Suit can continue against other defendants
Partial compromise
Land grant property by Specia dc Inam abolition act 1956 , 'A ' and 'B ' are jointly granted land in Bangalore, Karnataka. 'C' and 'D' are the brothers of 'A' and 'E' and 'F' are the brothers of 'B'. A suit is filed by E and F for their respective share. But A and B refuse that and A,B ,C and D get a partition deed executed to get their respective shares leaving out E and F. This suit is pending since 12 years , Now C and D are willing for a compromise with E and F and give some share of their property , but A and B are not willing for a compromise Can a partial compromise be done by C and D with E and F and get relieved from the suit and Can E and F continue with the suit against A and B. Please reply E mail- [deleted]
Asked 6 years ago in Property Law
Religion: Hindu
First answer received in 10 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
9 Answers
Initially the above suit was filed by C and D against A and B , later E and F impleaded themselves in this suit , during pendency of this suit the above mentioned partition deed was executed between A, B, C and D outside the court . C and D wanted to withdraw the suit , as the matter was settled outside the court , which was not allowed by the court and later E and F were Transposed as Plaintiff and C and D were transposed as defendants
Asked 6 years ago
Please lawyer mail the answer of the main question and the follow up question
Asked 6 years ago
1) If the property is granted to A & B in the Inam. Than its their wish to whom to give and not give.
2) Here is it like that tha Inam property is granted to a particular family and in the name of Karta of the family. And the Karta of families are A & B respectively to their families. If is this situation than E & F has rights in the property.
3) If the property is granted only in the names of A & B than other don't have any rights on property. Except their legal heirs.
A partial compromise can be recorded but is should cause the prejudice to the suit or other parties so with the permission of the Hon'ble court the agreeing parties can enter into partial compromise.
Also a partial compromise is not allowed in all cases as it can cause prejudice to other parties, so the court can grant permission for entering into such compromise on joint application.
he Supreme Court in K. C. Dora v. G. Annamanaidu. MANU/SC/0336/1973 : AIR 1974 SC 1069 has held that Order 23, Rule 3 not only permits a partial compromise and adjustment of a suit by a lawful agreement, but further gives a mandate to the court to record it and pass a decree in terms of such compromise or adjustment in so far as it relates to the suit. If the compromise agreement was lawful, the decree to the extent it was a consent decree, was not appealable because of the express bar in Section 96(3). Therefore, it appears that the law as it stood before the amendment in 1976 was that a consent decree can be set aside in a Miscellaneous Appeal and not by way of regular appeal under Order 43, Rule l(m) and also by way of a civil suit. Further there was unanimity in the decisions of the High Courts that a consent decree which is not lawful, i.e. void, can be set aside and an appeal was competent in spite of Section 96(3). However, the minority view was that even if the factum of compromise is in dispute still an appeal will be barred in view of Section 96(3).
Thakur Prasad vs. Bhagwandas (09.11.1984 - MPHC) : MANU/MP/0031/1985
1) since E and F are parties to the suit and no settlement is arrived at with C and D the suit has not been allowed to be withdrawn
Dear Sir,
Such partial compromise is possible under Order 23 Rule 3b of Civil Procedure Code that is with the permission of Court.
=====================================================================================
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE,1908
ORDER 23
3B. No agreement or compromise to be entered in a representative suit without leave of court.- (1) No agreement or compromise in a representative suit shall be entered into without the leave of the court expressly recorded in the proceedings; and any such agreement or compromise entered into without the leave of the court so recorded shall be void.
(2) Before granting such leave, the court shall give notice in such manner as it may think fit to such persons as may appear to it to be interested in the suit.
Explanation: In this rule, “representative suit” means,—
(a) a suit under section 91 or section 92,
(b) a suit under rule 8 of Order I,
(c) a suit in which the manager of an undivided Hindu family sues or is sued as representing the other members of the family,
(d) any other Suit in which the decree passed may, by virtue of the provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force, bind any person who is not named as party to the suit.
Since there is no compromise arrived among parties to the suit, the partial compromise is not valid.
If at all a few parties are willing to give away a certain share of property to the opposite party it can be considered as their own decision and cannot have a binding effect on other contesting parties.
The suit will continue in its original form.
In the event of defendants transposing themselves to plaintiffs then there is no question of compromise with only one set while the other set decides to put up the fight.
The case will be tried by the court and disposed accordingly.
The answers for your questions have been given, if you are interested in personal clarification you may consult any lawyer of this forum through phone consultation.
If the property is partitioned then only such compromise can be done.
