The Supreme Court clarified that advocates cannot compromise a client’s substantive property rights without explicit authorization. The court dismissed an appeal by legal heirs, upholding the trial court’s decision to set aside a compromise decree in a 1989 partition suit. The compromise decree accepted in 1994 did not meet the legal requirement of being in writing and signed by the parties.
The dispute originated from a 1989 partition suit seeking a one-fourth share in ancestral property. A compromise petition was accepted by the trial court in 1994, leading to a final decree in 1997. Nearly 25 years later, the legal heirs of a defendant challenged the compromise decree, alleging it was obtained fraudulently without the defendant’s consent.
The Supreme Court emphasized that advocates cannot unilaterally surrender or conclude their clients’ legal rights. The court highlighted the importance of seeking clear approval from clients before making concessions that affect their legal rights. Addressing the delay in challenging the compromise decree, the court stated that delay alone cannot legitimize an order contrary to law.
The apex court upheld the trial court’s decision to set aside the compromise decree, emphasizing the need for a full-fledged trial in the underlying partition dispute. Despite the suit being initiated in 1989, the court stressed the importance of due process in determining the parties’ rights through evidence collection and evaluation.
