The judgment emphasizes the validity and acceptance of a lawful compromise reached through mediation in a property dispute, and the directive for the Trial Court to act in accordance with the settlement.

JUDGMENT

1. Sri.A.Madhusudhana Rao., learned counsel for appellants and Sri.H.Manjunath., learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1 have appeared in person.

2. Learned counsel for respective parties submit that appellant No.1 for herself and as a GPA holder on behalf of appellants 2 & 3 and respondent No.1 have arrived at a settlement before Bengaluru Mediation Centre, Bengaluru and a Memorandum of Agreement under Sec. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rules 24 and 25 of Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 is also filed.

3. Learned counsel jointly submit that the same may be taken on record and the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for respective parties submit that appellant No.1 and respondent No.1 are present before this Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel.

5. When queried by this Court appellant No.1 for herself and on behalf of appellants 2 & 3 and respondent No.1 stated that they have indeed settled the disputes and have arrived at compromise before Bengaluru Mediation Centre, Bengaluru and the appeal may be disposed of in view of the settlement arrived at by them. They further submit that they have arrived at settlement without there being any coercion, threat or any undue influence.

6. The Memorandum of Agreement i.e., settlement arrived at between the parties before the Bengaluru Mediation Centre, Bengaluru is taken on record and perused the same. It is noted that the same is signed by Smt.Tasmeem Waheed Ahmed - appellant No.1 for herself and as General Power of Attorney of Sri.Zoheb Waheed Ahmed & Sri.Zubair Waheed Ahmed - appellants 2 & 3 respectively and Sri.Mohammed Waheed Ahmed - respondent No.1.

The same reads as under:

"The parties above named submit as follows: I. The above appeals are filed by the appellants under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Order dtd. 8/11/2021 passed by the learned XII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.3093/2019 on I.A.No.1 and 4 seeking relief of declaration, permanent possession and permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties.

Both the 1st appellant and 1st respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 1987 at Bengaluru. They have two sons who are majors and who are parties to this appeal as appellants No.2 and 3. From the year 2016 both the parties had developed differences between them and which led to filing of several cases between them. At present, both the children are majors and residing in Saudi Arabia.

The suit was filed in the Court below with respect of ownership by the 1st respondent seeking declaration and permanent injunction restraining the 1st appellant from interfering with regard to suit schedule 'B' property namely:-

1) A residential house bearing No.441 (New No.441/16), situated at 14th Main, Lakkasandra, Bengaluru. The said property was purchased jointly in the names of 1st appellant and 1st respondent.

2) A residential house property bearing No.133, situated at Puttenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, which is now part of Arakere - MICO Layout, in the names of their children appellants No.2 and 3.

II. The above appeals have been referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. It is essential to place on record that the mediation process has taken place between the parties in the presence of their advocates. During the course of mediation the 1st appellant represented for herself and on behalf of appellants No.2 and 3 as GPA Holder and 1st respondent along with their respective counsels were present. It is appropriate to record comprehensive settlement in this case.

III. The parties have resolved their disputes on the following terms and conditions:

1. That in respect of the above stated properties it is agreed between the parties that the appellant No.1 shall be the absolute