A compromise between parties, if accepted by the court, is binding and results in the cessation of claims while outlining property rights and financial settlements.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. Kamal, J.

1. The parties are present and have filed a compromise petition. Terms of the Compromise petition are as under:

“Compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code

The appellants and the respondents No.1 to 6, respectfully submit as under:

1. The appellants herein have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 17-7-2019 passed by the First Additional District and Session Judge Bagalkot sitting at Jamkhandi in R.A. No.64/2010, reversing the judgment and decree dated 5-1-2010 passed in O.S No.17/1990, by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jamkhandi.

2. The appellants herein have filed a suit in O.S No.17/1990 on the file of Civil Judge Jamakhandi At: Jamakhandi for partition and separate possession of their 1/6^th share in the suit schedule 'A' to 'D' properties. In the said suit they have contended that one Sangappa - was the propositus of the Family and the defendant No.1 in the suit. The Sangappa had two male children namely Gurulingappa-defendant No.3 and Tammanna- the defendant No.9 and one daughter namely Bouravva Sangappa Kadapatti- who was arrayed as the defendant No.2 (a), in the said suit. The 1^st appellant- plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.10 are the sons of the said Tammanna and the 2^nd appellant- the plaintiff No.2, is the wife of defendant No.9 Tammanna. The defendant No.4 Shivawwa is the wife of defendant No.3 and the defendant No.5 to 8 are the children of defendant No.3 and 4. It is also contended by the appellants herein that the defendant No.9, without there being any legal necessity sold the suit schedule item No.1 in the suit schedule 'A' property, without taking note of the interest of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and as such the said transfers made in favour of the defendants 11 to 15 are not binding on the plaintiffs. The said suit filed by the appellants herein was came to be decreed by the trial court, however the 1^st Additional District and Session Judge Bagalkot, in R.A No.64/2010, allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S No.17/1990. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3. During the pendency of the above appeal, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and as per the said settlement, the plaintiffs have agreed to give up their claim, insofor the properties which are already been sold in favour of the defendants No.11 to 15. The respondents No.'s 8 to 11 are the Legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.11 and the respondents No.12 to 15 are the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.12. At the time of the filing of the suit, as there was an agreement to purchase the property from the original defendant No.12, for the family the defendant No.12 was made as the party to the said suit and on the death of the defendant No.12, the respondent's No. 12 to 15, was added as parties. In the same way at the time of the filing of the suit, as there was an agreement to purchase the property from the original defendant No.13, for the family the defendant No.13 was made as the party to the said suit and on the death of the defendant No.12, the respondent's No. 16 to 23, was added as parties to the proceedings. As there is an agreement to purchase the property from the original defendant No.14, he was also made as the party, however the said agreement has not been finalised and the sale agreement has been cancelled. The defendant No.15, is the tenant of the one of the suit schedule property and they have now vacated the premises. As the plaintiffs have amicably settled their dispute with their family members ie the respondents No.1 to 7, the other respondents are