In Brief
The appellants, members of a Hindu joint family with three branches, challenged a compromise decree from 1984 that had allocated family properties unfairly to them. The Supreme Court held that under the Code of Civil Procedure, a separate suit cannot be filed to set aside a compromise decree; the proper remedy is to approach the court that recorded the compromise. However, the Court allowed the appeal partly on the ground that the Tatabad residential property was not included in the 1984 compromise. Since it was purchased in 1979 with joint family funds when all three branches were part of a joint family, the Court declared each branch entitled to an equal 1/3 share in the property and ordered a partition decree.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.