The court established that mutual agreements regarding compensation in the context of litigation are enforceable, and that the absence of a notice under Section 125 of the Societies Act does not preclude recovery when the matter does not involve the management of the society.

JUDGMENT

1. RFA No.658/2017 is filed by the defendant No.2 and RFA No.693/2017 filed by defendant No.1, under Sec. 96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the City Civil and Sessions Judge in O.S.No.9348/2014 dtd. 7/1/2017.

2. Heard the argument of learned counsel for appellants and respondents.

3. The rank of the parties before the Trial Court are retained for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money contending that the land bearing Sy.No.118 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas situated at Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli has been granted in favour of the plaintiff on 31/10/1961. The Saguvali chit was also issued in his favour on 21/3/1970. There was non alienation clause, for selling the property. The plaintiff has alienated the land in favour of the defendant No.3, through registered sale deed on 7/8/1980 and in turn, defendant No.3 sold this property to defendant No.1 under the sale deed dtd. 15/11/1985. The alienation was affected by violation of provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "PTCL Act"). When the plaintiff filed petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore for declaring the sale deeds as null and void, the same was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, vide order dtd. 4/10/1996 and sale deed was declared as null and void. An appeal came to be filed before the Deputy Commissioner, which was allowed on 13/10/1997 by setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The plaintiff filed writ petition in W.P.No.31033/2010 before the High Court, in the meanwhile, the defendants proposed for amicable settlement. After the discussion, they entered into compromise, during the pendency of the writ petition as the compromise was not permissible in the said writ petition, they mutually agreed for the terms and conditions. The plaintiff paid Rs.4, 80, 000.00 to the defendant No.1 and Rs.7, 20, 000.00 to the defendant No.2 and Rs.3, 00, 000.00 to the defendant No.3 and they also acknowledged the receipts for having received the amount. The receipts were issued by defendant Nos.1 and 2 as the defendant No.3 was a close relative of plaintiff and he did not insist for the receipt from defendant No.3 for having paid Rs.3, 00, 000.00. The defendant agreed that in the event of non availability of the compensation amount and the sites under the incentive scheme, they agreed to repay amount received from the plaintiff. The writ petition came to be allowed on 8/12/2011, the W.A.No.538/2012 filed before the Larger Bench, which came to be allowed and the order passed by the single Judge inW.P.No.31033/2010 was set aside. The plaintiff also filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed on 6/12/2013. The plaintiff demanded the defendants to return the amount, but they had given evasive reply. The plaintiff is poor person have arranged Rs.15, 00, 000.00 with great difficulty and paid to the defendants towards the settlement. Later, notice also issued, but they have not complied. The defendant No.3 has made an untenable reply to the notice. The plaintiff sent legal notice on 7/8/2014 to the defendant No.2, as per the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Societies Act" and filed the suit.

5. Defendant No.1 appeared and filed separate written statement, contending that the writ petition filed by the plaintiff by challenging the order of Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore dtd. 13/10/1997 after expiry of 13 years of alienation and order of the Deputy Commissioner, hence, the writ petition came to be dismissed. Further denied that the defendants received any amount and contended that the plaintiffs persuaded these respondents not to contest the writ petition and he had agreed to pay Rs.4, 80, 000.00 to this defendan