Settlement agreements made voluntarily and without duress are enforceable, allowing for confirmation of ownership and resolving disputes amicably.

JUDGMENT :

H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.

This appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2012 passed by the XXIV Additional City Civil and Judge, Bangalore (CCH-6) in O.S.No.1282/2007, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed.

2. On service of notice, the plaintiff appeared through counsel. The appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff are dead. Hence, their legal representatives are brought on record. Now, the parties have settled the matter and they have filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. The compromise petition is signed by the parties. The parties are present before the Court. They and their signatures are identified by their respective learned advocates. They state that they have entered into the settlement out of their volition and without any duress from anybody and they have settled the matter in terms of the compromise petition. The compromise petition is extracted below:

“APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

Appellant No. 1(a) to 1(c) and Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) submit as hereunder:

1. The father of Appellants No.1(a) to 1(c) has filed the present appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2012 passed by XXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore(CCH-6) in OS No. 1282/2007, which was filed by the father of the Respondent No.1(a) to (d) interalia for a judgment and decree to declaration that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 29.09.2006 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore as Document No. KRI-1-21673/2006-07 condensed in CD No.KRID-225 executed by erstwhile owner, l.e. 2nd respondent, in respect of the schedule property and for a permanent injunction.

2. During the pendency of this appeal, upon perusal of the title documents regarding the Suit Schedule Property, and after obtaining independent legal advice, Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) agreed to amicably settle the dispute with the Appellants and confirm the ownership and possession of the Appellants over the Suit Schedule Property.

3. Accordingly, Appellants No.1(a) to (c) and Respondent 1(a) to 1(d) have come forward to settle the matter. Respondent 1(a) to 1(d) out of her own free will and volition, agrees to affirm the ownership and possession of the Appellants over the suit property. In view of making such confirmations regarding ownership and possession of the Appellants, Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) requested the Appellants to make payment of certain amounts, which were agreed to by the Appellants.

4. The Appellants have paid a total sum of INR. 65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Five Lakhs only) to Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) towards full and final settlement of all claims, rights, title and interest, if any, over the Suit Schedule Property and to assert the ownership of the Appellants. The payments have been made as follows:

i. INR. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) vide Demand Draft bearing No.313561 dated 08.9.2025 drawn on PPB Indiranagar 1^ (st) stage Branch, Bangalore in favour of SMT.Soubhagya B.M.W/o of late Nagaraj R.

ii. INR. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) vide Demand Draft bearing No.313558 dated 08.9.2025 drawn on PPB Indiranagar 1st stage Branch, Bangalore in favour of SMT.Manjula M W/o of late Nagaraj R.

iii. INR. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) vide Demand Draft bearing No.313560 dated 08.9.2025 drawn on PPB Indiranagar 1st stage Branch, Bangalore in favour of SRI.YASHWANTH M.N S/o of late Nagaraj R.

iv. INR. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) vide Demand Draft bearing No.313559 dated 08.9.2025 drawn on PPB Indiranagar 1st stage Branch, Bangalore in favour of SRI.AJAY N S/o of late Nagaraj R.

5. Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) hereby acknowledges the rec