IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
Raju S/o Late Ranoji – Appellant
Versus
Laxmibai W/o Rukmanrao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.
1. The compromise petition under Order XXIII RULE 3 of Code of Civil Procedure is filed and it is signed by appellants No.1 and 2 and respondents No.1 to 7 and 10. Respondent No.10 - Arjun is the Special Power of Attorney Holder of respondents No.8, 11 to 16 and 18 to 20. The compromise petition is enclosed with the affidavits of appellants No.1, 2 and respondents No.1, 2, 10 and the copy of the Special Power of Attorney dated 12.08.2025 executed in favour of Arjun (respondent No.10).
2. Appellants No.1 and 2 and respondents No.1 to 7 and respondent No.10 are present before the Court. Respondent No.10-Arjun is the Special Power of Attorney of respondents No.8, 11 to 16 and 18 to 20.
3. The terms of settlement as enumerated in compromise petition are as under:-
“The Appellants, respondent herein most respectfully submits as under:
1. The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01-02-2022 passed in R.A.No.109/2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bidar, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2017 passed in O.S.No.06/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bidar.
2. It is sub
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.
Settlement agreements made voluntarily and without duress are enforceable, allowing for confirmation of ownership and resolving disputes amicably.
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.
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....
The court confirmed that a compromise in a partition case is valid if voluntarily entered without coercion, facilitating expedient resolution through final decree proceedings.
The court has the discretion to permit parties to settle their disputes in the interest of justice, and a compromise/settlement agreement can be allowed if found to be legal.
Settlement of property disputes via compromise is valid under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, affirming the parties' mutual consent and withdrawal of appeals.
Compromise decrees must be entered with proper representation and knowledge of all parties; if procured without consent, they are invalid.
The court upheld the validity of a voluntary settlement between parties in a compensation dispute, emphasizing the importance of amicable resolutions in litigation.
(1) Daughter has been recognised and treated as a coparcener by birth with equal rights and liabilities as of that of a son – It is not necessary that a coparcener whose daughter is conferred with ri....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.