In Brief
Triloki Nath Singh purchased agricultural land from Sampatiya through a sale deed in January 1984. Sampatiya was party to a partition suit in which a compromise decree was passed by the High Court in 1994, allocating portions of the property to different claimants. Triloki sued seeking to declare the compromise decree fraudulent and void. The Supreme Court held that Order 23 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure bars suits against compromise decrees by non-parties. A compromise decree is binding and can only be challenged before the court that passed it. Triloki, as a transferee from a party to pending proceedings, takes subject to the compromise outcome. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the suit unmaintainable.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.