AIR 1956 ORISSA 210

Orissa High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Narasimham , J

Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.11— Consent decree - Estoppel. Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.115— It is now well-settled that though a compromise decree may not operate as res judicata under S. 11 it would operate as estoppel by judgment which will be as effective between the parties as a judgment passed on contest. (1895) 1 CH D 37 and 1926 AC 155 and 1929 PC 289 (AIR V 16), Rel. on. 1948 Nag 304 (AIR V 35) and 1947 Mad 5 (2) (AIR V 34), Ref.(Para 3) K brought a suit for declaration against J that the former was the validly adopted son of the latter. The suit ended in a compromise decree wherein J unambiguously admitted K as his validly adopted son. In a subsequent suit for declaration brought by K against the agnates of J . Held, that the admission by J that K was his validly adopted son being fundamental to the decision in the previous suit, the compromise decree in the previous suit would completely bind the parties to that suit and the persons claiming through them would be clearly estopped from raising that question again. Held further, that although a compromise decree stands practically on the same footing as an agreement and it is open to a party to show that the agreement is not binding on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, etc., the appellants who alleged t....