A compromise may be recorded despite non-appearance of parties lacking any subsisting title or claim.

The appellant challenged the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 53A/1995 concerning ownership, title and possession of the disputed property.

During the pendency of the appeal, the parties filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stating that they had voluntarily and amicably settled all disputes relating to the property without coercion, fraud, inducement or threat.

Under the compromise, the respondents acknowledged the appellant’s exclusive ownership and peaceful possession and agreed not to raise any future claim concerning the property. In consideration, the appellant agreed to pay an aggregate amount of ₹30,00,000, to be distributed equally among six respondents.

The Registrar (J-1), pursuant to the Court’s order dated 31 July 2026, verified the compromise and recorded the statements of the appearing parties.

Whether the compromise entered into by the appearing parties was voluntary, lawful and capable of being recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC?

Whether the absence of respondent No. 2 and respondent Nos. 3(a) to 3(g) prevented the Court from disposing of the appeal in terms of the compromise?

Whether the appeal should be disposed of and a decree drawn in accordance with the compromise?

The Court applied Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits a court to record a lawful compromise in writing and signed by the parties and to pass a decree in accordance with such compromise.

The Court also applied the principles that a compromise must be voluntary, bona fide, lawful and free from coercion, fraud, undue influence, inducement or threat.

The Court accepted the parties’ submission that the settlement had been reached with free consent and without any vitiating factor.

The Registrar’s verification and the recorded statements supported the genuineness of the compromise.

The non-appearance of respondent No. 2 was not treated as fatal because he had asserted only tenancy rights and no claim to title. Similarly, respondent Nos. 3(a) to 3(g) represented a predecessor who had already been ex parte and who, according to the Trial Court’s judgment and the plaint case, had no surviving title in the property.

On that basis, the Court concluded that the compromise was lawful and that no impediment remained to recording it under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

The appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise, including the parties’ settlement regarding the appellant’s ownership and possession and the agreed monetary consideration.

The terms of the compromise were made part of the decree, and the Court directed that the decree be drawn accordingly.