The court recognized the significance of mediation and settlement in family disputes and upheld the settlement agreement under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

1. This Writ Petition is listed for acceptance of report submitted by Bangalore Mediation Centre (‘BMC’, for short) to the effect that the matter is amicably settled between the parties.

2. The petitioner has assailed order dated 16.11.2016 passed in Case No.MSC/CR/38/2016-17 passed by the 2nd respondent herein as well as endorsement bearing dated 04.01.2017 issued by the 1st respondent herein, copies of which are produced as Annexures A and B to the Writ Petition.

3. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, this Court referred the matter to BMC so as to explore the possibility of settlement having regard to there being an element of settlement in the case. The parties viz., the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein appeared before the BMC. It is also noted that another son of 3rd respondent Sri. Manjunath also appeared before the BMC and the said parties have arrived at a mediated settlement before the BMC.

4. BMC has submitted its report enclosing the Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005.

5. Learned AGA represents respondent Nos.1 and 2. He submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no objection to the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and 3rd respondent and Sri. Munjunath.

6. Petitioner and 3rd respondent as well as Sri. Manjunath are present before the Court. Petitioner and 3rd respondent are identified by their respective counsel. Sri. Manjunath though has not been made a party to the proceeding, is present before the Court and he has been identified by the learned counsel for respondent No.3. He submits that he has also participated in the mediation and has accepted the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and 3rd respondent and himself. The petitioner and 3rd respondent as well as Sri. Manjunath who have been identified by their respective counsel submit that they have agreed to resolve the dispute amongst them in terms of Memorandum of Settlement and that they have settled the disputes on their own volition and that there is no force or coercion from any quarter. They submit that the Writ Petition may be disposed of in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the respective parties endorse the submission made by their respective parties and submit that the interim order passed in this case be vacated and the Writ Petition be disposed of in terms of Memorandum of Settlement.

8. Submission of the learned counsel and the respective parties is placed on record.

9. The Memorandum of Settlement reads as under:

“MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SECTION 89 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 READ WITH RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDIATION) RULES,

2005 Brief Facts of the Case:

1. The Respondent No.3 Sri. K. Ramaiah is a senior citizen aged 74 years and was married to Venkatamma who died on 31.07.2011. Out of the wedlock he has 5 children namely 1) Sri. Srinivas.R, the petitioner in the above Writ Petition, who is married and lives in a portion of the schedule property with his family; 2) Smt. Sujatha.R, who is married and settled in Bangalore; 3) Sri. Chandrashekar. R, who has left the family long since and his whereabouts are not known to the family as he has not kept in touch with the family; 4) Sri. Nagaraj who was adopted by K. Muniswamy, brother of Respondent No.3 and since then Sri. Nagaraj is been living with his adopted family and he died on 21.06.2006 leaving behind his wife and son. The said Nagaraj has never kept contact with his natural parents (Respondent No.3 Sri.K.Ramaiah and late Smt. Venkatamma) and has acquired adopted family’s properties; 5) Sri. Manjunath. R, who is married and lives in a portion of the schedule property.

2. The schedule property more fully described herein below is the self acquired property of K Ramaiah the 3rd respondent herein. It is stated by the said Ramaiah (3rd respondent herei