Third Party Can Sue Over a Compromise Decree: Rajasthan High Court on Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC

After D died intestate in 2024, his sister, brother and the heirs of another brother, as Class II heirs, obtained a compromise decree dividing his self-acquired properties (paras 3, 9-11). The petitioner applied under Section 151 CPC to set it aside, claiming to be D's wife and sole Class I heir; the respondents denied any marriage, relying on the 2019 dissolution of D's earlier marriage (para 3). The trial court held her marriage unproved and dismissed the application on 31.05.2025, and she filed this petition under Article 227 (paras 1, 3).

The petitioner was not a party to the suit or the compromise, and the compromise order itself said it bound only the parties (paras 7, 16). Her claim first required proof of a valid marriage to D after the 2019 dissolution; that disputed question of fact gives rise to a separate cause of action and cannot be decided within the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 on a Section 151 application (paras 14, 17-18). Setting out the remedies, the Court held that a party to a compromise must challenge it before the trial court and is barred from a separate suit, while a third party claiming independently may sue, appeal with leave, or apply to the same court (paras 20-20.11, 25). This accords with Sakina Sultanali Sunesara and the Karnataka High Court in Sushila v. Vijay Kumar (paras 21-22). Triloki Nath Singh concerned a person claiming through a party and was misread (paras 19, 23). The trial court's finding on her marital status was without jurisdiction (para 27).