AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 3162 ::2007 AIR SCW 5741 ::(2007) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 743 ::(2007) 103 RevDec 593 ::(2008) 1 CivilCourtC 390 ::2007 (7) SCC 482 ::(2007) 10 Scale 572 ::(2007) 4 Cal HN 54 ::(2007) 69 All LR 163 ::(2008) 1 Bom CR 445 ::(2007) 4 All WC 4024 ::(2007) 5 CTC 165 (SC) ::2007 (5) CTC 165 ::2007 (6) MadLJ751 ::(2008) 1 MPLJ 235 ::(2008) 1 Mah LJ 743 ::(2007) 4 Ker LT 965 ::(2007) 58 AllIndCas 244 (SC) ::2007 (58) AllIndCas 244 ::(2007) ILR(ker) 4 SC 181

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Kerala)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): K. G. Balakrishnan, R. V. Raveendran, Dalveer Bhandari , JJJ

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.23 R.3A— Constitution of India , Art.226— Compromise decree - Protection from further challenge - Does not bar High Court, examining allegations of fraud against statutory authority. O.P. No. 19728 of 2001 (S), D/- 18-10-2005 (Ker), Reversed. @page-SC3163 Order 23, Rule 34 provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. The bar contained in Rule 3A will not come in the way of the High Court examining the validity of a compromise decree, when allegations of fraud/collusion are made against a statutory authority which entered into such compromise. It is true that decrees of Civil Courts which have attained finality should not be interfered lightly. But when on an order being passed by High Court directing Temple Board to take possession of Temple property from respondent, the Board entered into compromise with respondent to give up their rights in property in question in lieu of respondents giving possession of another property which was also a Temple property and got a compromise decree passed, challenge to such compromise decree by an aggrieved devotee, who was not a party to the suit, cannot be rejected, where fraud/collusion on the part of officers of a Statutory Board is made out. Further, when the High Court by or....