Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 792
High Court of Karnataka
ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI, J.
Leelavathi Bai & Others
Versus
Tukarama Rao & Others
R.F.A. No. 189 of 2009
Decided On : 06-12-2013
For the Appellants:R.L. Patil, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, G. Shankar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of a voluntary compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the C.P.C, and its impact on modifying the judgment and decree in a civil appeal.
Headnote:
Compromise - Settlement of Dispute - Order XXIII Rule 3 of the C.P.C - O.S.No.9/2007 - Survey No.82/B20 - Agricultural Land Property - Division of Property - Terms and Conditions of Compromise - Final Decree
Fact of the Case:
The parties settled the matter and presented a memorandum of compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the C.P.C. The appeal challenged the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.9/2007 by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore. The parties agreed to settle the dispute amicably by way of compromise, involving the division of an agricultural land property bearing Survey No.82/B20.
Finding of the Court:
Accepting and recording the compromise, the court disposed of the appeal and modified the judgment and decree under appeal in terms of the memorandum of compromise. The office was directed to refund the entire court fee to the appellants' side.
Issues: Settlement of dispute through compromise petition, division of agricultural land property, terms and conditions of compromise, and final decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the terms and conditions of the compromise petition and its implications on the division of the agricultural land property. The court's decision was influenced by the voluntary settlement of the dispute by the parties and the terms agreed upon in the compromise petition.
Final Decision: The court accepted the compromise, modified the judgment and decree, and directed the refund of the entire court fee to the appellants' side.
1. The parties have settled the matter and presented the memorandum of compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the C.P.C. It is signed by them and their respective learned advocates. The parties and their signatures are identified by their respective learned advocates. The parties state that they have entered into the compromise of their own volition and without any duress from anybody.
2. The memorandum of compromise petition is taken on record. It reads as follows:
"1. The above named Appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.9/2007 by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore. This Hon'ble Court admitted the above appeal and stayed the judgment and decree of the lower court.
2. During the pendency of the appeal the Respondent Sri Tukaram Rao died leaving behind his LRs to succeed to his estates. After the demise of First Respondent his LRs were brought on record. Thereafter the Appellants and Respondents with the intervention of elders and well-wishers arrived at a conclusion to settle the dispute amicably by way of compromise. The schedule property is an agricultural land property bearing Survey No.82/B20, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas (i.e. 100 guntas), situated at Aruvanahalli Villge, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, which is more fully described and marked as per the below mentioned schedule property. The Appellants and Respondents have agreed to divide/partition the schedule property in four shares. And out of 2 (two) acres 20 (twenty) guntas (i.e. total 100 guntas) in Survey No.82/B20, to the extent of 0- 22 guntas, situated at Aruvanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, which is more fully described in the below mentioned Schedule-A property (herein after referred to as Schedule-A property) is allotted to the share of Appellant No.1 to 5 jointly and exclusively.
3. And out of 2 (two) acres 20 (twenty) guntas (i.e. total 100 guntas) in Survey No.82/B20 to the extent of 0-22 guntas, situated at Aruvanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, which is more fully described in the below mentioned Schedule-B property (herein after referred to as Schedule-B property) is allotted to the share of Appellant No.6 to 10 jointly and exclusively.
4. And out of 2(two) acres 20 (twenty) guntas (i.e. total 100 guntas) in Survey No.82/B20 to the extent of 0-22 guntas, situated at Aruvanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, which is morefully described in the below mentioned Schedule-C property (herein after referred to as Schedule-C property) is allotted to the share of Appellant No.11 exclusively.
5. And out of 2 (two) acres 20 (twenty) guntas (i.e. total 100 guntas) in Survey No. 82/B20, to the extent of 0-25 guntas, situated at Aruvanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, which is more fully described in the below mentioned Schedule-D property (herein after referred to as Schedule-D property) is allotted to the share of Respondent No.1(a) to 1(c) jointly and exclusively.
6. Whereas remaining 0-09 guntas in Survey No.82/B20, situated at Aruvanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, which is more fully described in the below mentioned Schedule-E property (herein after referred to as Schedule-E property) is allotted to the share of Respondent No.1(c) exclusively for her marriage purposes.
7. Accordingly both Appellants and Respondents have hereby agreed to the below mentioned terms and conditions of the compromise petition before this Hon'ble Court.
8. That the terms and conditions of the compromise petition are as hereunder:
a) The parties have severed themselves from the Joint Family of Smt.Rama Bai, with effect from this day and have therefore, ceased to be members from that date and released their interest in the schedule property with effect from the said date.
b) It
