In Brief
The case concerns whether a person who is not a party to compromise proceedings can file a separate suit to challenge the compromise decree on grounds of fraud. The appellant purchased land from Sampatiya, one of the parties to a partition suit that ended in a compromise decree. The appellant later sought to declare the compromise decree fraudulent and void. The Supreme Court held that Order 23 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure bars any suit to set aside a compromise decree. The only remedy is to petition the court that passed the decree itself. A stranger to the compromise cannot circumvent this by claiming through the party who executed the sale deed. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.