JOGINDER SINGH BEDI Vs. BAWA DARBARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in this application filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11, Order 12 Rule 6 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seek rejection of the plaint or alternatively dismissal of the suit on the ground; inter alia. that the suit tor dedaralion for setting aside (he compromise decree passed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code ot Civil Procedure by this Court on 4th Januarv, 1975 in Suit No. 443 of 1981 is not maintainable in view of the bar provided under Order 23 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure and further the plaintiff has acted upon on the compromise decree and taken benefits and advantage out of such decree. and as such he cannot be permitted to challenge this compromise decree.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this application are that the plaintiff tiled Suit No. 443/81 for partition and rendition of accounts regarding Joint Hindu Family properties. The properties for the partition in this suit were the immoveable properties as at present referred to in paragraph 2 of the suit and one of the properties is property No. "0, Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri. New Delhi measuring about 805 sq, yds. The compromise in that suit was arrived at between the parties and a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recording the compromise and passing the decree in terms of the compromise was moved. The statements of the partics were recorded on 4th January, 1985 and on the same date the decree in terms of compromise was passed.

(3.) It appear that on 23rd July, 1985 the plaintiff hled, in application (I A 3952/85) under Order 23 Rule 3 and Section 151 of the Codc of Civil Procedure for setting aside the compromise decree dated 4th January, 1985 on substantially the same grounds which have been taken in the present suit. These grounds are that the defendant have alleged in the writter statement that some of the properties had been bequeathed to them by H.S. Bedi, the deceased brother of the plaintiff vide Will dated 2nd August, 1967 The said Will was a forged document and the plaintiff had filed a complaint against his father and two brothers. In the said complaint the said defendants were summoned. A revision petition was filed against the order of summoning. During the pendency of the revision petition defendant No. 2, Manvinder Singh Bedi, and defendant No. 4, Harjeet Singh Bedi, approached the plaintiff for a settlement. When the plaintiff showed his unwillingness he was manhandled and given beatings with the help of anti social elements. Defendant No. I Bawa Darbara Singh, father of the plaintiff, misused his position as father and exercised undue influence and forced him to accept the compromise. His father had told him that he was giving entire Malcha Marg property to the plaintiff and on his assurance the plaintiff signed on the compromise petition. When he read she compromise he pointed out the discrepancy to his father who orally assured him that every oral commitment would be duly honoured. In these circumstances he persuaded his counset, Mr. P.K. Seth, to sign the compromise on his behalf. The said compromise. it was pleaded, wa under compulsion. The compromise having been entered into under duress, coercion and undue influence was inequitable and bad in law.