Compromise has been defined in the CPC

Under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code;-

Compromise of suit— where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been
adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise

[303][in writing and signed by the parties] or where the defendant satisfied the plaintiff in
respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such
agreement, compromise satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree is accordance
therewith

[304][so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the
agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit:]

[305] [Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment
or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but not adjournment shall
be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded,
thinks fit to grant such adjournment.]

[306] [Explanation—An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the

Indian Contract Act,1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning
of this rule;]

[307][3A . Bar to suit— No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise
on which the decree is based was not lawful.

Once a compromise has been affected between the parties the court gives a declaratory decree
for the same

Under section 17(2) (vi) of the registration act(Documents of which registration is

compulsory)- any decree or order of a Court[except a decree or order expressed to be made on
a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-
matter of the suit or proceeding]

It has been further held in Ghulam Nabi Dar & Ors vs State Of J & K & Ors on 3 January,
2013 that a compromise entered without malafide intention or unless when the Settlement
arrived at was the outcome of fraud or unlawful. His Lordship was also of the view that the
Settlement having been duly signed and acted upon by the parties, the same was binding on the
parties and could not be withdrawn unilaterally.

Under Chapter IV of the specific relief act “declaratory decree” are defined as follows:-

34. Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right. — Any person entitled to any
legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying,
or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make
therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any
further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek
further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Explanation.—A trustee of property is a “person interested to deny” a title adverse to the title of
someone who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.

35. Effect of declaration.—A declaration made under this Chapter is binding only on the
parties to the suit, persons claiming through them respectively, and, where any of the
parties are trustees, on the persons for whom, if in existence at the date of the declaration,
such parties would be trustees.

In simple terms, a declaratory decree is one which settles the right and removes the confusion of
the status of the party.

From this the essentials of a declaratory suit can be namely:-

-The person filing the suit must be entitled to legal right or any right as to any property
-The person against whom the suit is to be filed must actually be denying the right or is
interested in denying the right of the plaintiff
-The decree will not be passed if there exists any other remedy.

But the ultimate power remains with the court’s discretion.

In the case of Mohd. Manjural Haque v. Bisseswara Banerjee, the court suggested three fold
classifications for determining the ambit of declaratory relief. First, it defines rights and does not
give any present relief. Second, it restores the deprived rights of the plaintiffs and gives effect
instant relief. Lastly, it is made as an introductory relief granted by the court.