SNEH GUPTA v. DEVI SARUP & Ors.

1.7 Title to a property must be determined in terms of the statutory provision. If by reason of the provisions of the Hindu Success.ion Act, .1956 the appellant herein had c derived title to the property along with her brothers and sisters, she cannot be deprived thereof by reason of an agreement entered into by and between the original plaintiff and the contesting defendants. [para 27] [573-D, E] E D referred to. R. Ramamurthy Ayer v. Raja V Rajeswara Rao (1972) 2 SCC 721; R. Rathinavel Chettiar v. V Sivaraman (1999) 4 SCC 89; Bijayananda Patnaik v. Satrughna Sahu and Ors. (1964) 2 SCR 538; and Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. Firm K.B. Bass & Co. (1967) 3 SCR 886 - Amteshwar Anand v. Virender Mohan Singh and Others (2006) 1 sec 148 - distinguished. 2.1 If the hearing of a case is preponed, it should be done with notice to all the parties. It is not the case of respondent no. 1 that notice had been given to all the ·F parties or otherwise also they were aware thereof. Indisputably, the date fixed in the matter was July, 1998. The compromise petition, however, was filed on 25.04.1998. For the purpose, the date was preponed. Indisputably, the appellant was not informed thereabout. She was not given any notice of preponement of the date. The, question as to whether the appellant knew thereabout or not is essentially a question of fact. [para 38 and 31] [578-8, C; 575-G, H; 576-A, B] G Kashmir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC H ,259 - held inapplicable. ~ ,,. "" .... ). .... ... ~· SNEH GUPTA V. DEVI SARUP & ORS. 557 ~ )- f ... Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf (2006) A 7 SCC 756; T VR. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities v. Raghava Mudaliar AIR 1961 SC 797 - distinguished. ' M. Meenakshi v. Metadin Agarwal (2006) 7 SCC 4 70 and Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba (2004) 2 SCC 377; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others v. ZakirHussaif'! (2005) 7 SCC 447; State of Punjab and Others v. Gurdev Singh (1991) 4 SCC 1; and A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Na yak & Anr.(1988) 2 SCC 602 - referred to. 8 -'(

2.2 The High Court, however, was exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While exercising the said jurisdiction, the High Court had a limited role to play. It is not the function of the High court - while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction to enter into the disputed question of fact. It has not been found by the High Courtithat the findings arrived at by the Additional District Judge were perverse and/ or in arriving at the said findings, the Additional District Judge failed and/ or neglected to take into consideration the relevant factors or based its decision on irrelevant factors not germane thereto or there existed an error apparent on the face of record. [para 33] [ 576-E, F, G] -,/ Yeshwant Sakhalkar and Another v. Hirabat Kamat Mhamai and Another (2004) 6 SCC 71 - referred to.

3.1 The compromise decree even if void was required to be set aside. For the said purpose, the provisions contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable. It is not the law that where the decree is void, no period of limitation shall be attracted at all. [para 48] (587-0, E]