[08/09, 08:16] Girija Vel: AIR 2023 TELANGANA 136
Bhojraj Srinivas v. Bhojraj Divya.
Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), 0.7 Rr.11(d), 10 Rejection of plaint – Application for – Declaratory suit Property dispute between husband and wife – Suit was required to be instituted before Family Court and not before regular Civil Court – Suit filed by husband in District Court which did not have any jurisdiction to entertain suit It was case of inherent lack of jurisdiction in District Court to entertain suit . In such case, Court which does not have jurisdiction to entertain suit cannot return plaint granting liberty to plaintiff to present suit before Family Court but has to dismiss suit for want of jurisdiction – Rejection of plaint was proper.
[09/09, 10:08] Girija Vel: . Now coming to answer the issue no.(iii) and (v) rendered by the Trial Court against the Plaintiff, which has been overruled by the First Appellate Court, the undisputed fact to be taken note of is that the Plaintiff was not a Page 9 of 10 R.S.A. Nos.342 & 343 of 2019 {{ 10 }} party in the said suit i.e. Title Suit No.515 of 1998. The provision contained in Order-23 Rule-3(A) of the Code says that no suit shall lie to set aside compromise a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. The position of law has been well settled that a person, who is a party to the suit which has ended in compromise cannot challenge the very compromise decree on the ground of being not lawful by filing another suit and he/she can only question the said decree, which have been obtained by fraud and as such not lawful by filing a petition before the said Court, which passed the compromise decree. But the Plaintiff being not a party to the said suit when she came to know about the said comp
[09/09, 10:10] Girija Vel: AIR 2024 ORISSA 4
Santilata Sahoo and others v. Kanchanlata Das and another.*
Suit for partition – Bar of limitation – Suit was filed after 13 years of compromise decree in previous suit – However, plaintiff was not party to original suit and she had no knowledge of compromise decree until later -Therefore, three-year limitation period for challenging decree starts from date of her knowledge – Suit is not barred by limitation.
[09/09, 10:10] Girija Vel: AIR 2024 ORISSA 4
Santilata Sahoo and others v. Kanchanlata Das and another.*
Suit for partition – Bar of limitation – Suit was filed after 13 years of compromise decree in previous suit – However, plaintiff was not party to original suit and she had no knowledge of compromise decree until later -Therefore, three-year limitation period for challenging decree starts from date of her knowledge – Suit is not barred by limitation.