Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, C.M.POONACHA
Fakkirappa S/o Adiveppa Badni – Appellant
Versus
Chandrashekhargouda S/o Shivanagouda Pujar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of ownership and injunction in property dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties identified and acknowledged their resolution. (Para 3) |
| 3. registry to record modified decree. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 4. compromise is voluntary and lawful. (Para 5) |
| 5. appeal disposed of per terms of compromise. (Para 6 , 7) |
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
A mutual compromise resolving property disputes is valid and enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure, reflecting parties' free will in legal matters.
The court upheld the voluntary compromise between parties regarding partition claims and confirmed the modification of the decree, emphasizing the absence of coercion and mutual satisfaction with the....
Settlement agreements made voluntarily and without duress are enforceable, allowing for confirmation of ownership and resolving disputes amicably.
Compromise decrees are binding unless legally challenged, and mere allegations of fraud do not invalidate established agreements without sufficient proof or a court ruling to the contrary.
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.
A binding compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure prevents parties from raising further claims related to the settled issues.
Court recognized a mutual settlement among parties and recorded a decree reflecting the terms agreed upon during the appeal.
A party may file a suit to enforce a compromise decree when non-compliance is proven, regardless of previous dismissals for the same cause of action.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
