Kuppuswami Reddi and anr. Vs. Pavanambal - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Chennai High Court |
| Jan-23-1950 |
| Civil Misc. Petn. No. 8393 of 1949 |
| Rajamannar, C.J. ; and Somasundaram, J. |
| AIR1950Mad728 |
| Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908 - Order 23, Rule 3 |
| Kuppuswami Reddi and anr. |
| Pavanambal |
| V.V. Ramadurai, Adv. |
| T.R. Srinivasan, Adv. |
| Hussain Yar Beg v. Radhakishan
|
- rajamannar, c.j.1. in this application to record the compromise alleged to have been entered into by the contending parties, the respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting that she was a party to the agreement and that she affixed her thumb impression to it; but alleging that the compromise was brought about by fraud and coercion by the guardian of the minor petitioner, who is himself the first petitioner. it has been held that under order 23, rule 3, civil p. c. a compromise cannot be attacked by allegations that it is a voidable compromise brought about by fraud, undue influence and duress. provided the compromise is lawful, that is, not contrary to law, the court is obliged to record it. the mere fact that it may be voidable is no reason for a court refusing to record it. vide surappa raju v. venkataratnam, : air1936mad347 , hussain yar beg v. radhakishan, 57 all. 426 : a. i. r. 1935 all. 37. in this case all that is alleged by the respondent is that the compromise is voidable. it is not suggested that any term of the compromise is unlawful. we therefore record the compromise and direct a decree to be passed in terms thereof.
Rajamannar, C.J.
1. In this application to record the compromise alleged to have been entered into by the contending parties, the respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting that she was a party to the agreement and that she affixed her thumb impression to it; but alleging that the compromise was brought about by fraud and coercion by the guardian of the minor petitioner, who is himself the first petitioner. It has been held that under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C. a compromise cannot be attacked by allegations that it is a voidable compromise brought about by fraud, undue influence and duress. Provided the compromise is lawful, that is, not contrary to law, the Court is obliged to record it. The mere fact that it may be voidable is no reason for a Court refusing to record it. Vide Surappa Raju v. Venkataratnam, : AIR1936Mad347 , Hussain Yar Beg v. Radhakishan, 57 ALL. 426 : A. I. R. 1935 ALL. 37. In this case all that is alleged by the respondent is that the compromise is voidable. It is not suggested that any term of the compromise is unlawful. We therefore record the compromise and direct a decree to be passed in terms thereof.