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 terms.

JUDGMENT :

H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.

This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the preliminary decree passed by IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in OS No.15058/2005, dated 03.04.2012, whereby suit has been partly decreed.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit partition in O.S.No.15058/2005. The suit came to be partly decreed, by judgment and decree dated 03.04.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed this regular first appeal before this Court.

3. After service of notice to the respondents, the respondents appeared through counsel. The parties have settled the matter and they have filed the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w. Section 151 of CPC.

4. The parties are present before the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. The parties have agreed for the compromise without any volition or duress from anybody. The compromise petition is taken on record. The same is extracted below:

“The appellants and respondents submit as under:-

1. The above appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.15058/2005 passed by the Court of IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CH-21) (Mayo Hall) in so far as it relates to dismissal of suit in respect of suit 'B' schedule properties.

2. The plaintiffs are the daughters and defendants 3 and 4 are sons of late B.Marigangalah. The defendants 1 and 2 are widow and son of late Jagadeesh, who is another son of B. Marigangalah.

3. The plaintiffs filed suit in O. S. No.15058/ 2005 against the defendants before the Court of IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (Mayo Hall) for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties.

4. The learned City Civil and Sessions Judge by the Judgment dated 03-04-2012 decreed the suit in part granting 1/6th share each in the suit 'A' Schedule residential house and dismissed the suit in respect of the suit 'B' schedule agricultural lands.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 03-04-2012 passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiffs have filed above appeal challenging the dismissal of suit in respect of suit 'B' schedule properties. During the pendency of above appeal, plaintiffs 1 and 2/appellants 1 and 2 died and their LRs were brought on record as appellants 1(a) to 1(c) and appellant 2(a). Since appellant No.1(c)- Ravi Chetan J is presently employed at Canada, in this compromise petition he is represented through his duly constituted General Power of Attorney holder-Father-appellant No.1(a) Sri. Jakati K.D.

6. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed an application before this Hon'ble Court seeking amendment of the plaint in respect of suit 'B' schedule properties and the said interlocutory application came to be allowed on 17-12-2019 permitting the appellants to amend the plaint as prayed for. Pursuant to said order, the appellants carried out amendment in the plaint and also filed amended plaint.

7. By the intervention of well-wishers and elders of the locality, the appellants and respondents have settled the issue which give rise to this Hon'ble Court by way of Regular First Appeal and filed a joint memo dated 11- 09-2023 enumerating certain terms and conditions to be fulfilled before filing compromise petition and agreed to present compromise petition after successful completion of the conditions set-out in the joint memo.

8. Now all the conditions of joint memo have been fulfilled and hence the appellants and respondents are filing the compromise petition with the following terms and conditions:-

a) The appellants 1(a) to 1 (c) have collectively received a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) in lieu of their share in the suit schedule properties as full and final settlement. Out of Rs