SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Kar) 693

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, G. BASAVARAJA, JJ.
R. Rathanprem and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Sri. M K Ramegowda and Ors. – Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 483 of 2021 (SP)
Decided On : 21-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. Kalyan R ., Adv.
For the Respondents: Sri. H N Basavaraju., Adv., Sri. M.V. Manjunath, Adv.

The court upheld the validity of an amicable settlement between parties in a specific performance case, emphasizing the importance of consent and equity in resolving disputes.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 3 - Specific Performance - Appeal against Judgment & Decree for Specific Performance - Parties reached a settlement whereby the appellants retain the property and refund the advance of Rs. 21,00,000/- to the first respondent, along with an additional Rs. 2,00,000/- - Court fee to be refunded to the first respondent - Failure to pay the additional amount allows the first respondent to seek recall of the order. (Paras 2-6)

(B) Settlement - The court recognized the bona fide nature of the compromise and the parties' free will in reaching the settlement, allowing the appeal in terms of the compromise. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges a decree for specific performance where the first respondent had paid an advance of Rs. 21,00,000/- for a property. The parties settled amicably, agreeing on the return of the advance and an additional amount.

Findings of Court:
The court found the compromise to be bona fide and without impediments, allowing the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the settlement and the terms regarding the refund of the advance and additional payment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of amicable settlements and the parties' consent, ruling that the appeal could be disposed of in accordance with the terms of the compromise.

Result: Appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise.

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

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top