Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RACHAKONDA VENKAT RAO & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
LATE R.SATYA BAI REP. BY HERL.R. SMT. RAJKUMARI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/01/1996
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 965 1996 SCC (1) 671
JT 1996 (1) 105 1996 SCALE (1)111
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.
Original Suit No. 4 of 1975 on the file of the learned
District Judge, Adilabad was instituted by R.Satyabai widow
of R.Gopal Rao against the three brothers of her husband. On
July 13, 1978, a decree was made by the Court on the basis
of a compromise between the parties. Under this compromise,
the plaintiff was given certain properties exclusively while
in some others she was given a joint interest. Plaintiff
having died, her daughter and sole legal representative
applied, in 1991, for passing a final decree. The defendants
(appellants herein) objected inter alia on the ground that
under a settlement arrived at in 1985, the parties have
finally settled the issue of partition and hence there is no
question of passing a final decree now. They also submitted
that when certain differences arose again between plaintiff
and defendants, they were settled under a memo of family
arrangement dated July 5, 1992, which was said to be signed
by all the parties.
The learned District Judge held, after an enquiry that
the 1985 settlement put forward by the defendants is true
and, therefore, the application for passing a final decree
is liable to fail. On revision (filed by the plaintiff), a
learned Single Judge of the High Court held that Order 23
Rule 3, as amended in 1976, does not recognize an oral
settlement and hence the 1985 settlement could not have been
accepted by the Court. The learned Single Judge pointed out
further that when even according to the defendants the 1985
settlement has been superseded by the 1992 settlement, the
1985 settlement could not be held to per final decree
proceedings. The learned Single Judge also referred to the
finding of the learned District judge that the 1992
settlement/family arrangement is not established by the
defendants.
Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
defendants-appellants pointed out that by virtue of clause
(S) in sub-section (2) of Section 97 of the Civil Procedure
Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, the amendment effected in Order
23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code has no application to
pending suits and proceedings and, therefore, the learned
Single Judge was in error in holding that 1985 settlement,
being oral, cannot be looked into by the Court. Learned
counsel pointed out that the learned District Judge has
found the said settlement to be true on the basis of the
evidence adduced by the parties. Another objection raised by
him is that the compromise decree passed in 1978 was itself
a final decree and that it does not contemplate any
proceedings being taken for passing a final decree. Learned
counsel also stated that his clients are prepared to stand
by either the 1985 settlement or the 1992 arrangement if
either of them is acceptable to the plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the appellants is right in his
submission that by virtue of Section 97(2)(s) of the Civil
Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, "the amendment as well
as substitution made in Order XXIII of the First Schedule by
Section 74 of this (Amendment) Act shall not apply to any
suit or proceeding pending before the commencement of the
said Section 74." The present suit was instituted in 1975.
Hence there is no legal bar to the defendants putting
forward the oral settlement of 1985 as a bar to the
application filed by the plaintiff for passing a final
decree. Unfortunately, this aspect was not brought to the
notice of the learned Single Judge. In as much as the
judgment of the learned Single Judge is substantially
influenced by reliance upon amended Order 23 Rule 3 of the
Civil Procedure Code, the proper course in our opinion is to
send the matter back to the High Court for a reconsideration
of the revision petition (C.R.P. 1594 of 1993) in accordance
with law. We make it clear that we should not be understood
to have expressed any opinion on any issue between the
parties and all such issues as are arising in the C.R.P.
shall be open for consideration by the High Court. We have
expressed ourselves only on the effect of Section 97(2)(s)
of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 and on no
other question.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter
remitted to the High Court with the above directions. No
costs.