ANITA KUMARI Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against the order dismissing an application to recall the compromise decree obtained on 04.08.1992. This application came to be filed by quondam minors, who after attaining majority, sought to contend that the compromise effected in the name of the mother, purporting to act as guardian on their behalf, had not acted to their welfare. The compromise was void and unenforceable in view of the fact that the statutory mandate of an express order of the Court granting leave to the compromise was not made at the time when the decree was passed. The compromise was grossly unfair, since the suit had been filed for their entitlement to whole of the property but the compromise restricted their interest only to 1/3rd share and that too, for all the plaintiffs together. This, according to the petitioners, was grossly prejudicial to their interest. Yet another objection stated against the compromise decree was that the decree itself was vague as it did not predicate the exact extent of property which each one of the plaintiffs was to take.

(2.) The application for recalling of the decree came to be filed after an initial attempt to challenge the decree by means of independent suit failed and in Civil Revision No. 4830 of 2005, decided on 6.9.2007, this Court had held that an independent suit was not maintainable and that the petitioners would be at liberty to move before the same Court which granted the decree to recall the judgment and decree in accordance with law. On the matter being adjudicated before the same Court, the Court below rejected all the objections taken by the petitioners and dismissed the petition. The petitioners are in revision challenging the correctness of the order.

(3.) The first issue is whether the compromise that purported to bind the minors was passed in terms of legal provision relating to compromise that could bind minors. The procedural mandate comes through Order 32 Rule 7 CPC that sets out that a guardian or next friend shall not enter into a compromise without seeking the leave of the Court and without the certification that the compromise was for the benefit of the minors. The said provisions are reproduced as under:-