M. GANESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in all these revisions petitions related to the same proceedings and between the same parties, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For better appreciation, the facts involved in C.R.P. Nos. 4626 of 2012 are stated below:--

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court whether the defendant satisfied the plaintiff in respect of whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit and only after that, a compromise decree can be passed by the Civil Court. But, in the instant case, the defendants did not satisfy the plaintiff in respect of whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit, therefore, the compromise decree passed by the Court below is contrary to the above said provision. Further, it is contended that the Court below ought to have seen that Item Nos. 51, 52, 53 and 70, which are mentioned under Schedule 3 to the compromise decree, were sold to the third party and such sold items are allotted to the share of the petitioners under the compromise decree and hence, when the same was brought to the notice of the Court below, the Court below erred in rejecting the said claim. Under the compromise decree Mr. D. Rajamanickam and Mrs. Madheswari, who are parents of the second respondent, are the beneficiaries, but, they are not party to the suit and hence, when the same was brought to the notice of the Court below, the Court below, without adverting to such legal issue, erred in dismissing the petition filed to set aside the compromise decree, which suffers from perversity, impropriety and illegality and the same warrants interference of this Court.

(3.) In support of his submissions, he has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Chitra Construction Private Limited v. S. Subramanian and others,2008 5 MadLJ 126 for the proposition that when forged documents had played vital role in convincing the applicants to give their consent for such compromise formula, then Court is empowered to set aside the compromise decree. Finally, he has contended that since a fraud has been played by the plaintiffs/respondents herein by trying to siphon off the properties belonging to the defendants/petitioners herein, the Court has a responsibility to protect the rights and interest of the petitioners and therefore, the compromise decree is required to be set aside and quashed.