Suhail Rather
Bandipora, May 15 (KNS): A court in Jammu and Kashmir’s Bandipora district has recalled a 43-year-old compromise decree related to an orchard land dispute, holding that the settlement was passed without following mandatory legal procedures and without the consent of all affected parties.
The order was passed by the Court of Munsiff/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bandipora, presided over by Amandeep Singh, on May 11 in connection with an 8-kanal orchard at Malangam village under Survey No. 2574.
The applicants, through counsel Aamir Hassan Bhat, had sought recall of a compromise decree dated April 30, 1983, passed in the case titled *Malik Saifuddin and others versus Subhan Khanday and others*.
They alleged that the decree had been obtained fraudulently and without the knowledge or consent of several legal heirs who had ownership rights in the ancestral property.
According to court records, the land originally belonged to one Ghulam Ali and, after his death, devolved upon his sons Malik Saifuddin and Malik Shah Ahmad as co-sharers.
The applicants argued that the property had never been partitioned and that material facts were concealed from the court while obtaining the decree. They also contended that other legal heirs were deprived of their lawful shares under Sharia and Mohammadan law.
The plea further stated that several pro forma defendants, including predecessors of the present applicants, were never summoned in the original proceedings despite having ownership interests in the land.
After examining the original case file retrieved from the record room, the court observed that although summons were ordered to be issued to pro forma defendants on April 4, 1983, there was no proof on record to establish that the summons had actually been served.
The court noted that the matter was listed for compromise on April 26, 1983, and the decree was passed four days later despite the absence of pro forma defendants from the proceedings.
In its judgment, the court held that mandatory requirements under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with, as the compromise was neither signed by all parties nor supported by statements of all affected persons recorded before the court.
“A person cannot be forced to enter into a compromise and binding a person to a compromise which was not even executed by that party would amount to illegality,” the court observed.
Rejecting objections regarding delay, the court held that limitation would begin from the date the applicants became aware of the decree, which they claimed occurred in 2024 while obtaining revenue extracts from the local Patwari.
The court also observed that an illegal or void decree could not attain legality merely because of the passage of time.
Consequently, the court recalled the 1983 decree and restored the original suit to its initial stage for fresh issuance of summons to the defendants.(KNS).