Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 23, Rule 3–Observation of High Court that the compromise was not in accordance with the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3–Sustainability–Though the property was jointly owned by defendant nos. 1 & 2, however, defendant no. 2 had consistently acknowledged that he had no ownership rights over the property–In the written statement of another suit, he explicitly stated that the property belonged to defendant no. 1–This fact was further supported by the family arrangement dated 17.09.1976–Compromise signed by plaintiff and defendant no. 1, later verified by defendant no. 2 also substantiates this fact–Further, these facts were upheld by the High Court and this Court in previous proceedings–Compromise dated 11.05.1978 became delayed due to various adjournments and, thereafter, a fresh compromise application with identical terms was filed duly signed by both parties due to original being misplaced–Trial Court correctly recorded and verified this compromise, fulfilling the requirements of Order 23, Rule 3–Findings of High Court were not correct.
