Balbir Singh v. Baljinder Kaur

Subhendu Sanyal

Calcutta University

This Case commentary is written by Subhendu Sanyal, a Law Graduate of Calcutta University

CASE DETAILS:

BENCH: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain &

Hon’ble Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill

CASE TYPE: Civil Revision Petition

DECIDED ON: 28th March, 2019

PARTIES:

Appellant: Balbir Singh

Respondent: Baljinder Kaur

CITATION: CR No. 5823 of 2018 (O&M)

ABSTRACT:

This case evolved around the enforcement of a Compromise decree of the Trial Court regarding the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner, Balbir Singh, and the respondent, Baljinder Kaur. Both the parties had earlier reached a compromise that had been recorded by the trial court leading to the decree in question.

Balbir Singh has filed this petition challenging the decree of the trial court which dismissed the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. As Baljinder had failed to comply with the terms, the petitioner sought to rescind the decree.

Issues for consideration

1) Whether the decree of the trial court could be rescinded on account of non-compliance by the respondent;

2) The applicability of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in this particular case.

Petitioner’s Argument

Since the respondent had failed to comply with the obligations of the decree, the petitioner argued that the trial court should have rescinded the decree under section 28 ibid. The decree was contingent on the mutual performance of obligations, and her failure to vacate the property negated the entire settlement.

Respondent’s argument

The respondent contended that she had complied with the compromise terms to the best of her ability. The trial court’s order was justified as the petitioner was attempting to alter the terms of the decree post-settled.

Judgment

The court found no substantive reason to rescind it under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the court held that the compromise decree was passed with the consent of both parties. The court emphasized the importance of mutual obligations and commented that minor disputes over performance did not warrant the setting aside of the decree, especially in matrimonial cases.

Key Takeaways

Compromise decree in matrimonial disputes is meant to resolve differences amicably and the court is reluctant to interfere unless there is blatant non-compliance of the essential terms.

Casual invocation of section 28 is forbidden, essentially when mutual obligations are there.

This case reaffirms the judicial stance on maintaining the sanctity of compromise decree, encouraging settlement of matrimonial disputes through mutual arrangement over lengthy litigation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent has filed a petition at the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, Punjab under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 which has been allowed and the marriage between the Parties has been ordered to be null and void by a decree of nullity dated 20.11 2018. The petitioner has challenged that decree dated 20.11.2018 of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, Punjab.

The present case revolved around the enforcement of the compromise decree passed by the trial court relating to a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent the parties had earlier reached a compromise that had been recorded by the trial court leading to the decree of nullity in question.

The petitioner has challenged the order of the trial court, which dismissed his application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. He sought to rescind the decree because the respondent had failed to comply with its terms, especially her refusal to vacate the residential property, which was an integral part of the agreement.

ISSUED RAISED

The key issues raised in the case of Balbir Singh Vs Baljinder Kaur can be summarized as follows:

1. Non-compliance with the Compromise Decree;

2. Applicability of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963;

3. Finality and enforcement of compromise Decree in matrimonial disputes.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

Below are the primary contentions of the petitioner:

1. Non-compliance with the Compromise Decree terms

The appellant has contended that the respondent had not complied with the essential terms of the compromise decree, which had been argued upon by both Parties in the settlement of their matrimonial disputes. The specific non-compliance alleged by the appellant was that the respondent had refused to vacate the residential property (house), which she was supposed to hand over to the petitioner as per the terms of the compromise terms. This was the key element and a significant obligation for the respondent in the settlement.

2. Rescindment of the compromise decree under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

This section provides for rescission of a decree in cases where the other party has not performed their part of obligations. The appellant sought the court's intervention to cancel the decree on account of non-performance by the respondent.

3. Entitlement to relief based on the respondent’s breach

According to the appellant, the compromise was contingent on mutual performance, and one party’s failure to perform her obligations negated the whole agreement, warranting judicial intervention.

4. Error by the trial court in dismissing the Application

The appellant claimed that the trial court did not properly appreciate the fact that the respondent had not complied with the agreed-upon terms, thereby depriving him of the benefit of the settlement. He sought the revision of the trial court’s order on this ground.

5. Legitimate Expectations of Performance

Balbir Singh asserted that the compromise decree was based on mutual expectations of performance, and Baljinder’s failure to comply with the obligations undermined the settlement. He relied on the principle that equity demands the rescission of the agreement where one party has failed to perform.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Below are the contentions of the respondent in defense:

1. Compliance with the compromise decree

The respondent contended that she had complied with the terms of the compromise decree to the extent possible. She argued any claims of the appellant of non-compliance were either exaggerated or not material enough to justify the drastic remedy of rescinding the decree.

2. No substantial breach of terms

Even if there were minor delays or issues with the performance of the decree, the respondent argued that these did not amount to a substantial breach that would warrant setting aside the entire compromise. She maintained that any dispute regarding the implementation of the compromise should not lead to the rescission of the decree.

3. Finality of the compromise decree

The respondent argued that both parties had willingly entered into the settlement, which had been recorded by the trial court and the decree should not be disturbed once it had been passed based on mutual consent. The purpose of the compromise was to bring a peaceful resolution of the dispute and she also contended that allowing the appellant to challenge the decree would defeat the very purpose of the settlement.

4. Improper Invocation of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

The Respondent argued about the way suggested by the Petitioner regarding the applicability of Section 28. The respondent contended that the appellant was wrongly using Section 28 to renege on the compromise and reopen settled matters.

5. Equity and justice in maintaining the Decree

The respondent further argued that equity demanded that the decree be maintained, as rescinding it would unfairly prejudice her position. She opined that wholesale rescission of the decree was not justified, especially since the decree was passed with mutual agreement.

6. No grounds for rescission of the decree

The respondent contended that the appellant had failed to show any justifiable cause/grounds for rescission of the decree. She argued that there was no evidence of her availing willful violation of any significant terms of the compromise. Moreover, the appellant was seeking undue advantage by trying to get the decree annulled for insignificant and/or invalid reasons under the law.

7. Protection of rights under the settlement

The respondent contended that the appellant’s application was a tactical move to undermine her rights and gain an unfair advantage.

RELATED PROVISIONS

The following related provisions are systematically involved in this case focusing primarily on Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and certain provisions of Civil Procedure related to the compromised decree.

1. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Rescission of Contract in case of non-performance)

This is the core legal basis on which the appellant sought relief. While section 28 generally applies to contractual disputes, it was invoked in this matrimonial dispute due to the settlement or compromise decree, where mutual obligations were imposed on both parties.

2. Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

This rule governs compromise decree and lays down the procedure for the parties to record a compromise in court. It provides the framework for the finality of compromise decrees and the enforcement of the settlements. The decree has the same effect as any other decree passed by the court after a trial.

The parties are bound to follow the terms of the decree.

Here the compromise decree passed between the respondent and the appellant was the result of a settlement recorded under this provision. The Petitioner challenged the performance of the decree and sought its rescission.

3. Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Review)

These provisions allow for the review of a decree or order passed by a court under certain circumstances. Although this section was not explicitly invoked in this case, it is relevant in the context of civil decrees, especially where there are grounds to challenge the terms or compliance with a decree.

In matrimonial matters resolved through compromise, if a party seeks a review or modification of the decree due to non-compliance, these provisions may come.

4. Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Inherent power of the court)

The court has wide discretion to act in the interests of justice.

The court has the inherent power to ensure justice where procedural laws do not provide a specific remedy.

5. Section 21, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Application of CPC in Hindu Marriages)

Procedural laws governing civil disputes, including provisions related to compromise decrees, apply to matrimonial cases under the Hindu Marriage Act, of 1955.

6. Equity Principles (Equity and Justice)

Courts seek to balance the rights and obligations of both parties in enforcing a compromise.

Minor technical non-compliance may not be enough to rescind a compromise decree, especially in matrimonial matters where the focus is on maintaining peace and finality.

7. Judicial precedents on compromise decree

The enforcement and rescission of compromise decrees are influenced by past judgments. Various rulings by Indian courts have laid down the principle that compromise decrees are generally binding and should not be easily disturbed unless there is a clear violation of essential terms.

KEY ELEMENTS OF THE JUDGEMENT

The judgment in this case by the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 28th March 2019 involved several key elements. These formed the basis of the court’s decision, focusing primarily on the enforcement of a compromise decree and the applicability of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

1. Validity and Binding Nature of the Compromise Decree

The court reaffirmed that a compromise decree once passed based on mutual agreement between parties, holds the same legal status as any other decree. The court emphasized that the sanctity of the compromise decree must be upheld, especially in matrimonial disputes where compromise is encouraged as a means to resolve disputes amicably.

2. Applicability of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

One of the key contentions of the appellant is to rescind the compromise decree as per Section 28 as the respondent failed to comply with her obligations of the decree. However, the court ruled that Section 28 (dealing with the rescission of decree due to non-compliance) was not applicable in this case.

The court pointed out that the matrimonial disputes did not fall under the same category as a commercial or contractual relationship where Section 28 is commonly applied.

3. No substantial non-compliance by the respondent

The court found that there was no substantial non-compliance by the respondent concerning the terms of the compromise decree. The court noted that minor delays or disputes over compliance in matrimonial matters do not automatically render the decree invalid.

Substantial non-compliance of essential obligations would be required to invoke the rescission of the decree which is not present in this case.

4. Finality and Encouragement of compromise in matrimonial disputes

The court observed that mutual settlements help avoid protracted litigation and enable parties to resolve their disputes amicably.

The court also highlighted that allowing a party to renege on compliance simply based on minor disputes would defeat the purpose of encouraging settlements.

5. No Justifiable grounds for Rescission of the decree

The court observed that the petitioner failed to establish justifiable grounds for rescission of the decree. The argument of the petitioner relating to the non-vacation of the residential property by the respondent did not quantify as the substantial ground for rescission of the compromise decree.

The court further observed that any minor disputes regarding compliance could be resolved through other legal remedies, but rescinding the entire decree was neither necessary nor warranted.

6. No Error in the Trial Court’s dismissal of the Application

This court upheld the decision of the Trial Court which had dismissed the application of Balbir Singh under section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court found no error in the judgment of the trial court, ruling that the lower court had correctly dismissed the application as there was no valid and substantial basis to invoke section 28 and rescind the decree.

CONCLUSION

The Hon’ble High Court concluded that:

1. Compromise decree in matrimonial cases should be upheld to maintain finality and peace between the parties;

2. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act is not applicable in matrimonial cases involving a compromise decree;

3. Minor disputes regarding compliance with the terms of the compromise decree do not justify setting aside the decree as a whole;

4. The trial court’s decision is correct and the compromise decree remains valid.

This judgment reinforced the importance of maintaining the sanctity of the decree in matrimonial disputes and discouraged the casual use of legal provisions meant for sheer commercial or contractual disputes in such matters.

REFERENCES

In the judgment of Balbir Singh Vs Baljinder Kaur, the Hon’ble Judges referred to various legal provisions and judicial precedents to conclude.

1. Jaswinder Singh Vs Manjit Kaur, 2709 of 2015, Punjab and Haryana High Court.

2. Ramesh Chandra Daga Vs Rameshwari Daga, (2004), 10, JT, 366, Supreme Court.

3. Manpreet Kaur vs Balkar Sigh, 2015(5), RCR, (Civil) 510, Punjab & Haryana high Court.

4. Abbayolla M Subba Reddy Vs Padmamma, 1998(4), RCR (Civil)314, Andhra Pradesh High Court.

5. Mohanlal Sharma Vs Parveen, 2009(4) RCR (Civil)749, Punjab & Haryana High Court.

6. Swapnanjail Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil, SLP( C) 25080 of 2016, Supreme Court.

7. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

8. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

9. Limitation Act