AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioners are the Plaintiffs and the Respondent is the 6th Defendant in O.S. 140/01 pending on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysore. The suit is for partition and separate possession. Plaintiff No. 1 is the mother of Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendants 1, 5 and 6. On account of the events which have taken place after the institution of the suit, the relief in the suit is now confined with regard to the property measuring about 53,335 Sq.feet.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Respondent was in difficulties, approached for financial help, in return to relinquish her right in respect of 53,335 Sq.feet of property and that, they paid Rs. 15,00,000/- to Defendant 6 who signed a memo dated 18.1.07 and relinquished her right in respect of the said extent of property.
Questioning an order dated 7.8.07, passed on I.A.16, W.P. Nos. 16431/07 and 13660/08 were filed. During the course of hearing, the Petitioners produced memo dated 18.1.07 contending that, the 6th Defendant has relinquished her right and as a result, the impugned order does not call for interference. On behalf of the Respondent, the existence of the memo, its validity were questioned and it was also contended that, it is a fraudulent document. Noticing that the memo relied upon by the Plaintiffs was not considered by the Trial Court and the execution of the said memo being denied, the writ petitions were disposed of directing the Trial Court to consider the contentions of both sides with regard to the memo dated 18.1.07.
The memo dated 18.1.07 was filed by the Plaintiffs in the Trial Court on 2.3.10. The Respondent / Defendant 6 filed statement of objections to the memo. The 2nd Plaintiff deposed as PW-1. 6th Defendant deposed as DW-1. Considering the rival contentions and appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court has held that, the memo dated 18.1.07 marked as Ex.P10 is not free from doubt and hence, the same is a fraudulent document. Challenging the said finding on the memo vide order dated 29.6.10, the Plaintiffs have riled these writ petitions.
Sri R. Nataraj, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, contended that, the Respondent having received Rs. 15,00,000/- from the Petitioners, has signed the memo and relinquished her share in Item No. 3 of the suit property. Since Respondent has given up her claim over the property, the finding of the Trial Court that Ex.P10 is a fraudulent and concocted document, is erroneous, unjustified and illegal. Learned Counsel contends that, the Trial Court has not considered the matter in the correct perspective and hence, the finding of the Trial Court in the impugned order is required to be quashed and the Trial Court be directed to accept the same.
In reply, Sri Sangamesh R.B., learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, contended that, the Trial Court has correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on it''s record and its finding in the impugned order is justified, learned Counsel further contended that, there is no jurisdictional error on the part of the trial court and upon holding of an enquiry, finding Ex.P-10 to be a fraudulent document, the impugned order has been passed and the same is not liable to be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel contends that, the Petitioners have failed to prove Ex.P10 and since the same is a concocted and fraudulent document, the Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order.
In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is :
Whether the Trial Court is justified in holding Ex.P10 to be a fraudulent document?
Under Article 227, this Court has jurisdiction to ensure that the sub-ordinate courts, statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority and well established principles of law. However, the exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognized constraints. The jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Apex court has held in catena of decisions that the correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. It has also been held that, the high court cannot lightly or liberally act as appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence and that, there cannot be a substitution of conclusions for the conclusions reached by the court or the tribunal below. However, it has been made clear that, the power to re-appreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done to a party unless there is interference and such exercise of discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice.
Where a compromise or settlement is arrived at between the parties outside the court, when one party to the suit sets up a compromise or adjustment and the other party denies the same, the court is required to enquire into the matter and record a finding as to whether such a compromise was in fact entered into. Pursuant to the order dated 09.03.2010 passed in W.P. No. 16431/2007 connected with W.P. No. 13660/2008, the trial court has held an enquiry, in which both the parties have deposed and documents produced have been marked as exhibits.
Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC provides for compromise of suit. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by both the parties, the court has to record such agreement or compromise and pass a decree in accordance therewith. Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 states that, if the alleged compromise is denied by a party, then the court shall decide the question without granting any adjournment for the purpose of deciding the same unless the court thinks fit and proper for reasons to be recorded to grant such an adjournment.
The Petitioners contend that, they paid Rs. 15,00,000/- to the Respondent, who signed a memo dated 18.01.2007 and relinquished her right in respect of 53,335 Sq.feet of the suit property. Indisputedly, the memo dated 18.01.2007 (Ex.P-10) was not filed in the trial court and was made known for the first time on 09.03.2010, during the course of hearing of W.P. Nos. 16431/2007 & 13660/2008. The said memo was filed subsequently in the trial court. PW-1 in her deposition has stated that, by a bonafide mistake, it could not be filed in the court earlier. PW-1 has admitted that, when I.A No. 16 was filed, Ex.P-10 was in her custody and there was no impediment for producing the same. She has pleaded ignorance about Ex.P-10 having been filed by her advocate on 02.03.2010. She has admitted that, I.A No. 16 was decided on 07.08.2007, which was questioned in the writ petition, According to her, on the next day of execution of Ex.P-10, an order of stay was passed in W.P. No. 16431/2007 and hence, the same was not produced. However, she has admitted that, on 26.10.2007, when her evidence was being recorded, Ex.P-10 was in her custody. Taking into consideration the absence of explanation for the delay in filing the memo and the testimony of PW-1, which does not inspire confidence of the court and there being no corroborative evidence, the trial court has held that, there are suspicious circumstances with regard to the genuineness of the memo. The trial court has found that, there is delay of about three years in filing Ex.P-10 in the court, which is against the conduct of a prudent person.
Upon appreciating the evidence on record, the trial court has recorded the finding that, Ex.P-10 is a fraudulent document. An adjustment by way of agreement, or compromise between the parties can be recorded by the court if it is proved to its satisfaction that a suit claim has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise In writing and signed by both the parties. The Petitioners having failed to prove that, there is lawful agreement or compromise between themselves and the Respondent, the trial court has no other option than to pass the impugned order. The trial court has acted within its jurisdiction and in conformity with the provisions under Rule 3 or Order 23 CPC. Since there is no dereliction of duty and violation of fundamental principles of law or justice in the matter of conducing the enquiry and in passing the impugned order, which is upon appreciation of the evidence on record, there being no apparent error, the writ petitions under Article 227 of Constitution of India, are misconceived.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions stand dismissed.
No costs.