A compromise decree in a partition dispute that was reached without impleading a daughter entitled to a share under the amended Hindu Succession Act, or her heirs, is a nullity in law, the Supreme Court has held, setting aside the Telangana High Court’s refusal to recall it on the ground of maintainability.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana rejecting, on maintainability, applications by the legal heirs of a daughter to recall a compromise decree of September 23, 2020 in a partition dispute, holding that the decree was a nullity because the daughter, a necessary party, had not been impleaded [Geeta Bai and Others v. K. Arjun Singh and Others].
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order on September 28, 2026 in an appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 20008-20010 of 2026, and remitted the applications to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Background of the case
The appellants are the legal heirs of Late Smt. Ballo Bai, the daughter of Late Shri Tikaram Singh. They say she was entitled to an undivided one-fourth share in the suit property under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005. Original Suit No. 473 of 2000, a partition suit, was filed by Late Shri Dhan Singh, a son of Tikaram Singh, against his brother and the heirs of another brother, without impleading Ballo Bai. The trial court dismissed the suit on June 30, 2009, and Dhan Singh’s heirs filed Appeal Suit No. 552 of 2009, again without impleading Ballo Bai’s heirs; she had died in the meantime.
The parties to the appeal entered into a memorandum of compromise partitioning the property among themselves, which the High Court recorded in its judgment and decree of September 23, 2020. The appellants say that her brothers had promised during her lifetime to give her and her heirs an equal share, and that they learnt of the compromise later. They filed I.A. No. 1 of 2022 to recall the compromise decree, I.A. No. 3 of 2022 for impleadment as necessary parties, and I.A. No. 4 of 2022 to restrain alienation of the property.
By its judgment of May 28, 2025 the High Court rejected all three on maintainability, observing that they could not seek recall of a post-decretal arrangement and that their remedy was a separate suit, or an appeal to a higher court with leave.
Why The Compromise Decree Is A Nullity
The Bench held the High Court’s view erroneous and unsustainable in law. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended, it said, Ballo Bai, as a legal heir of Tikaram Singh, was entitled to claim a one-fourth share and was undoubtedly a necessary party to the proceedings. It held that the compromise decree obtained by the brothers and their heirs without impleading her or her heirs:
“…was a nullity in the eyes of law.”
The Court said Ballo Bai and her heirs could not by any stretch be treated as strangers to the lis, so the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure did not stop them from challenging the compromise and seeking recall of a decree obtained behind their back.
Directions
The Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the three applications to it to be reconsidered afresh in light of its observations. The interim order it had passed on May 27, 2026 stays in force for two weeks from the date of the order, and the Court clarified that this will not influence the High Court’s independent decision on the request for stay after hearing the parties. The parties must appear before the High Court on October 5, 2026, and third parties who have filed impleadment or intervention applications before the Supreme Court have liberty to approach the High Court and appear on that date. The appeals were allowed on these terms.
Case Title: Geeta Bai and Others v. K. Arjun Singh and Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 20008-20010 of 2026
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 28, 2026