Skip to content


Ganga Varapu Krishna Venamma Vs. Naraparaju Venkata Mukunda Row - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.303a
AppellantGanga Varapu Krishna Venamma
RespondentNaraparaju Venkata Mukunda Row
Cases ReferredIn Srish Chandra Roy v. Banomali Roy
Excerpt:
compromise, finality of - subsequent conduct of one of the executants inconsistent with the terms of the compromise--whether such conduct entitles the other party to repudiate the compromise. - - v 584 one party to the compromise sought specific performance of it and was refused because there had been a failure of consideration on his part which disentitled him to enforce the contract......by the terms of the compromise embodied in exhibit-a, under which the plaintiff's rights were limited to the properties referred to in schedule b to the plaint which were to come to him after the death of the executant of exhibit-a. the fact that the executant subsequently acted in a manner inconsistent, with the compromise by denying the plaintiff's title to the above lands does not, in our opinion, justify the plaintiff in repudiating it. the compromise exhibit-a finally settled the rights of the parties, and there was nothing more to be done to give effect to it. in srish chandra roy v. banomali roy 31 c.v 584 one party to the compromise sought specific performance of it and was refused because there had been a failure of consideration on his part which disentitled him to enforce.....
Judgment:

1. We think the parties are bound by the terms of the compromise embodied in Exhibit-A, under which the plaintiff's rights were limited to the properties referred to in schedule B to the plaint which were to come to him after the death of the executant of Exhibit-A. The fact that the executant subsequently acted in a manner inconsistent, with the compromise by denying the plaintiff's title to the above lands does not, in our opinion, justify the plaintiff in repudiating it. The compromise Exhibit-A finally settled the rights of the parties, and there was nothing more to be done to give effect to it. In Srish Chandra Roy v. Banomali Roy 31 C.v 584 one party to the compromise sought specific performance of it and was refused because there had been a failure of consideration on his part which disentitled him to enforce the contract. We must modify the decree by awarding the plaintiff the properties in Schedule B of the plaint instead of all the properties in Schedule A.

2. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs throughout.

3. The memorandum of objections is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //