An appellate court may record and decree a lawful written compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

The appeal challenged a decree in a partition suit concerning property at E-79, Anand Niketan, New Delhi.

The Single Judge had allowed the plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, declared the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 entitled to 1/4 shares each, and determined the remaining shares by intestate succession.

The dispute arose from rival Wills attributed to the parties’ father.

During the appeal, the parties reached a family settlement, recorded in a Memorandum of Family Settlement (MOFS) dated 10 September 2026 and accompanied by an Agreement to Sell and Construction Agreements.

They jointly applied to have the compromise recorded and a decree passed in its terms.

The parties’ statements were verified and recorded on oath before the Joint Registrar.

Whether the appellate court could record the parties’ compromise and pass a decree in its terms under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

Whether the MOFS and accompanying agreements constituted a lawful, voluntary compromise that could be recorded and made the basis of a decree.

Section 107(2) CPC confers on an appellate court the same powers as a court of original jurisdiction, including the power to record a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

A compromise may be recorded where it is in writing, signed by the parties, and lawful; the court must be satisfied that it is genuine and not unlawful.

The application also invoked Section 151 CPC, but the judgment identified Section 107(2) and Order XXIII Rule 3 as the basis for recording the compromise.

The Court examined the MOFS, its annexures, the joint application and supporting affidavits, together with the parties’ sworn statements.

The statements confirmed that the settlement had been entered into voluntarily, without coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, threat or pressure, and that the parties undertook to perform its terms.

Finding the compromise written, signed, lawful and voluntary, and identifying no basis to regard it as unlawful or contrary to public policy, the Court accepted it.

It also clarified that the decree would operate only between the parties to the appeal; the rights and obligations involving the buyer and developer would be governed by their respective agreements.

It directed that the parties remain bound by the settlement and their recorded statements, clarified the limited operation of the decree as between the appeal parties, and directed the Registry to draw up the decree sheet.

The appeal and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.