http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER: SHANKAR SITARAM SONTAKKE AND ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT: BALKRISHNA SITARAM SONTAKKE AND OTHERS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/04/1954
BENCH: HASAN, GHULAM BENCH: HASAN, GHULAM MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ) BOSE, VIVIAN
CITATION: 1954 AIR 352 1955 SCR 99 CITATOR INFO : C 1991 SC2234 (41)
ACT: Consent decree-Legal effect thereof-Compromise not vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, misunderstanding or mistake-Decree passed thereon- Whether operates as res judicata- Civil Procedure Code-(Act V of 1908)--Order II, rule 2(3) -Relinquishment Of claim in a prior suit- Subsequent suit barred in respect of the claim so omitted.
HEADNOTE: It is well settled that a consent decree is as binding upon the parties thereto as a decree passed by invitum. Where a compromise is found, not to be vitiated by fraud, Misrepresentation, 100 misunderstanding or mistake, the decree passed thereon has the binding force of res judicata. Where the plaintiff confines his claim to account for a period up to a certain date only, he relinquishes his claim implicitly if not explicitly to the account for the subsequent period because Order II, rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that if a person omits, except with the leave of the Court, to he sue for all reliefs to which he is entitled, he shall not afterwards sue for any reliefs s...