CHINNAPAIYAN @ CHINNATHAMBI Vs. A. MOHAMED YUSUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of the Court below in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners to recall the decree passed in O.S.No. 58 of 1998 dated 9.2.2004 by setting aside the compromise recorded on the same day therein.

(2.) The defendants 4 and 7 in the said suit are the petitioners herein. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein filed the said suit for declaration and for permanent injunction on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet. The trial Court decreed the suit based on a compromise memo filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants 4 and 7 filed the above said application seeking to set aside the compromise recorded on 9.2.2004 and consequently, to recall the decree passed in the said suit.

(3.) It is their contention that they had never intended to enter any compromise nor they really entered into the same. The compromise memo is a fabricated/manipulated one and the same could not be a basis for the decree . They came to know about the said compromise only when an attempt was made by the plaintiff to evict them from the suit property. The signature and thumb impression found in the memo of compromise are the forged signature and thumb impression of the defendants 4 and 7 respectively. They did not consent for any compromise nor signed the same. The 4th defendant was already set exparte in the suit. While so, recording a compromise including the 4th defendant is invalid. Their erstwhile counsel filed the memo of compromise without verifying the truth of the execution of the same. He had colluded with the plaintiff and filed the memo before the Court. The plaintiff's vendor viz., the 5th and 6th defendants had no title to the suit property and therefore they could not convey the same to the plaintiff. The suit is barred by res judicata in view of the judmgent and decree passed in O.S.No. 130 of 1983.