A person who did not affix their signature to a compromise but subsequently acts in accordance with its terms is bound by the compromise decree
Case: Ashiya Ummal v. S.N. Sathy & Ors.
Coram: Justice A. Badharudeen
Case No.: RSA No. 247 of 2023
Court Observation: “In law, nobody is allowed to approbate and reprobate. To put it differently, a person, who enjoys the benefit of a compromise, he did not sign, after filing an affidavit acting upon the same and obtained the money in terms of the compromise, cannot deviate from the said compromise on the ground that he or she did not sign the same after acting upon the same,”
“Thus the legal position can be summarised holding that after the amendments which have been introduced, neither an appeal against the order recording the compromise nor remedy by way of filing a suit is available in cases covered by R.3A of O.23. As such a right has been given under R.1A(2) of 0.43 to a party, who challenges the recording of the compromise, to question the validity thereof while preferring an appeal against the decree. S.96(3) of the Code shall not be a bar to such an appeal because S.96(3) is applicable to cases where the factum of compromise or agreement is not in dispute”.
“On perusal of Annexure-R1.D affidavit filed by Ashiya Ummal, the 1st defendant herein, it is emphatically clear that Ashiya Ummal agreed and consented the compromise and subsequently acted upon the same though she did not sign the compromise. A relevant aspect forthcoming is the consent of the 1st defendant in the compromise in view of filing of affidavit accepting and acting upon the same,”
Previous Posts
