A mutual compromise resolving property disputes is valid and enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure, reflecting parties' free will in legal matters.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

1. The present first appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 calling in question the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2023 in O.S.No.221/2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’] whereunder the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs was decreed by the Trial Court.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule (1) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] placing on record the compromise agreed to between the parties, which reads as under:

“MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE PETITION U/O 23 RULE (1) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC

The appellants and respondents most respectfully submit as under:

1. The appellants herein were the original defendants' No. 1 was and 2, Respondents No. 1 and 2 were the original plaintiffs and Respondent No.3 was the original Defendant No.3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.221/2017 before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, against the Defendants i.e., appellants and Respondent No.3 for the relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners of suit schedule property i.e., land bearing Sy. No.742/2, measuring 12.12 acres situated at Kusagal Hubballi and for permanent Injunction. The said contested by the Appellants and the trail Court was pleased to decree the suit vide Judgment dated 01.08.2023 which is under challenge in the above appeal by the original Defendants 1 and 2.

2. That the above appeal is admitted and granted stay to the operation and execution of impugned judgment and decree. It is submitted that in the meantime the elders and well-wishers of both side have intervened and advised both appellants and Respondents on the ground that the dispute is with regard to identity only and in view of the same and considering the nature of dispute involved between the parties and to resolve the difference amicably and peacefully, the elders have suggested to settle the dispute by compromise and accordingly both the appellants and respondents have realized and confirmed the terms as suggested and have accepted by the appellants and Respondents and accordingly they settled the differences in the following terms voluntarily on their own without coercion or instigation of anybody:

(a) The appellants had purchased the land measuring 06-00 acres, out of 15 acre 06 guntas, in Block No.742/1, towards eastern side portion which is abutting to Haliyal Road, with specific boundaries from the husband of 3rd respondent Sri. Shankaragouda S/o Ramanagouda Pujar. The appellants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property from date of purchase till today which is admitted and confirmed by the Respondents.

(b) That the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, was pleased to issue Notification dated 07.04.2010, by exercising its power conferred under Sub-Section(1) of Section 3-A of National Highways Act, 1956(48 of 1956) by notifying several lands for acquisition including the land in Block No.742/1 and 2 for widening/ four lane etc.,) maintenance and operation of construction of Bypass to Hubli City connecting National Highway No.218, 63 and N.H.4 about 10117.Sq meter and the Designated Authority and Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highways, Mini Vidhansoudha, Dharwad was pleased pass award and issue award notice dated 04.09.2014.

(c) The 3rd Respondent who was original Defendant No.3, had filed Application for payment order in Misc. No.2/2015 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi and also filed another application