Himachal Pradesh High Court: While considering a regular second appeal challenging the dismissal of an appeal as not maintainable, a Single Judge Bench of Romesh Verma, J., held that where the final decree in partition proceedings is passed on the basis of a compromise duly acknowledged and signed by all parties, an appeal against the consent decree is barred under Section 96(3), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The Court held that the first appellate court had rightly concluded that an appeal against such a consent decree was not maintainable.
Background
The dispute arose from a suit for partition relating to jointly owned property inherited from a common ancestor. The plaintiffs instituted a civil suit in 2009 seeking partition of the property on the ground that the suit land being joint and not partitioned by regular process of law, the plaintiffs had 1/4th share each after the death of their father and mother. According to them, the suit property was in exclusive possession of all of them, and the defendants caused interference because of which they were unable to enjoy their share. The suit was contested by one of the defendants, while the other defendant was proceeded against ex parte. The trial court passed a preliminary decree dated 30 June 2012 declaring that both the plaintiffs and the defendants were entitled to 1/4th share each in the property.
Thereafter, an application under Order 20 Rule 18 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs seeking passing of the final decree. During the pendency of the final decree proceedings, a Local Commissioner was appointed to carry out the mode of partition. After receiving the report, objections were filed by the parties. Subsequently, the parties appeared before the trial court and made joint statements stating that they had entered into a compromise, accepted the report submitted by the Tehsildar, and desired that the application under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC be disposed of in terms of the report and the proposed mode of partition. Acting on the compromise, the trial court disposed of the petition filed under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC. Possession was thereafter delivered to the parties in terms of the agreed partition and the proceedings for final decree were disposed of as fully satisfied.
Aggrieved by the orders passed in the final decree proceedings, one of the defendants preferred an appeal under Section 96 CPC before the first appellate court. However, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable in view of the express bar contained in Section 96(3) CPC. The matter thereafter reached the High Court in this regular second appeal.
Counsel for the respondent noted before the Court that the dispute was a “classic case” between siblings, with the parties having contested the matter for more than 13 to 14 years since the original suit was filed in 2009.
Issue
Whether the judgment passed by the first appellate court holding the appeal filed by the appellant to be not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 96(3) CPC is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside?
Analysis
The Court noted that the record demonstrated that during the pendency of the application for passing of the final decree, the parties entered into a compromise and placed the same before the trial court. In the joint statements of the parties, it was declared that the parties had settled the matter and desired disposal of the final decree proceedings in terms of the agreed mode of partition. The Court further noted that the statements specifically recorded that the compromise had been effected without any pressure, fear or coercion.
The Court highlighted that the trial court expressly disposed of the proceedings based on the strength of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Subsequently, possession was delivered in terms of the compromise and the final decree proceedings stood fully satisfied.
The Court opined that Section 96(3) CPC creates an absolute and a specific bar against an appeal from a consent decree. The Court observed that after having participated in the compromise proceedings and having signed the statements, the appellant subsequently sought to challenge the decree through an appeal under Section 96 CPC, and such an appeal was clearly prohibited by Section 96(3) CPC and therefore was not maintainable.
The Court referred to Lajja Devi v. Khushiram Prajapat, 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 252, wherein it was held that:
“A consent operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding unless it is set aside by the court which passed the consent decree, by an order on an application under the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23. Therefore, the only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and made a decree in terms of it and establish that there was no compromise.”
The Court observed that once the decree-holder’s application for passing the final decree was decided on a compromise, supported by a joint statement duly signed by the parties, the trial court passed the final decree by consent and recorded satisfaction upon delivery of possession. As the final partition decree was based on compromise endorsed by the parties, an appeal is barred under Section 96(3) CPC and is therefore not maintainable.
Decision
Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal and affirming the impugned judgment, the Court held that the first appellate court had rightly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable under Section 96(3) CPC.
[Raj Kumar v. Sneh Lata, 2026 SCC OnLine HP 5166, decided on 11-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Karan Singh Kanwar, Senior Advocate with Upasana Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Yug Singhal and Ananya Sharma, Advocates.
