The court upheld the validity of a voluntary settlement between parties in a specific performance case, emphasizing the importance of good faith and equity in resolving disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(Krishna S. Dixit, J.)

This appeal seeks to lay a challenge to the Judgment & Decree for Specific Performance. After service of notice, the Respondents entered appearance through learned advocates. The second respondent since attained majority, the guardian is discharged.

2. Both the sides having brought about a settlement, have filed the Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908 seeking disposal of this Appeal in terms thereof. Essentially the settlement states that the suit property shall be retained by the vendors who happen to be the appellants herein and the amount received by way of earnest & advance in a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- about eight years ago shall be handed back to the vendee i.e., first Respondent - M K Ramegowda.

3. The appellants and their counsel to infuse elements of justice & equity in the subject settlement undertake to this court that an additional amount of Rs. 2 lakh (Rupees two lakh) only also will be given to the first respondent vendee. They agree that whatever court fee paid on the appeal memo be directed to be returned to the first respondent himself and that the remainder of the amount would be paid to him within four weeks. They also agree that failure to make such payment would entitle the first respondent to seek recall of this order and dismissal of the appeal itself. This is fair enough.

4. The Compromise Petition reads as under:

"Appellants and respondents humbly submits as follows:

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgement and decree dated 11/02/2021 in O.S.No.25/2017 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan.

2. The respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 6/11/2014. The plaintiff had paid an advance amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs only) out of the total sale consideration amount of Rs. 22,00,000/-.

3. That at the intervention of the friends and well-wishers the parties to the lis have agreed to amicably settle the dispute. The terms of the settlement are as hereunder.

4. The appellants as per the order dated 18/12/2021 have deposited an amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- before the executing court at Hassan in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court.

5. The appellants have agreed to pay an amount of Rs,20,00,000/- to the respondent No.1/plaintiff for which he has agreed to receive an amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- ad has given up his right over the suit schedule property. Towards the payment of Rs. 21,00,000/- the appellant have no objection to release the amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- which has been deposited by the appellants before the executing court and they would also file necessary memo before the trial court for the release of the said amount infavour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The respondent No.2 who is the daughter of the appellants has no objection for the settlement.

6. The respondent No.1/plaintiff will to claim any right over schedule property. And the settlement arrived between the parties is full and final.

7. The respondent No.1/plaintiff hereby acknowledge the receipt of the same ad the amount received is as full and final settlement to the respondent No.1/plaintiff and he has no more claims here afterwards in respect of the schedule property and that, he has no objection for the appellants/defendants to sell the schedule property.

8. The parties to this compromise have arrived at the settlement out of their own free will and consent. There is no any undue influence or coercion on the parties to the settlement.

Wherefore, in view of the full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent no.1/plaintiff, this Hon'ble Court may be please to modify the judgment and decree passed by the trial court I terms of compromise arrived between the parties, in respect of the schedule property and hence, the above appeal may be allowed in terms of the compromise arrived between the parities ad the office may be directed to refund the court fee to the appellan