In Brief
Three brothers and their descendants claimed shares in family properties. A 1960 partition deed divided properties into three branches, but the family continued joint businesses and acquired further properties together. In 1984, a compromise decree allocated most properties to two branches, leaving the third (Rangasamy branch) with only mill shares. The Rangasamy branch later sued to void the compromise as fraudulent. The Court held that Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC bars separate suits to challenge compromise decrees; the remedy is to approach the original court. However, the Tatabad residential property was not part of the 1984 compromise. The Court found the three branches remained joint family when this property was purchased in 1979, as the defendant's own claim of a 1981 partition presupposes prior jointness. Accordingly, each branch is entitled to an equal 1/3rd share in the Tatabad property.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.