The court confirmed that a compromise in a partition case is valid if voluntarily entered without coercion, facilitating expedient resolution through final decree proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2020 passed by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-25) in O.S.No.7188/2016.

2. We have heard Shri. Chandrachud A, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. Raghavendra V, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent jointly submit that the matter is amicably settled between the parties and they have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. We have perused the clauses of the compromise petition, they are in accordance with law and not opposed to public policy.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent identified the parties present before the Court. We had a detailed interaction with the parties. The parties expressed that the terms of compromise are drawn based on their instructions and on their own volition.

5. The said statement is placed on record.

6. In view of the above statement, the compromise petition is accepted. The terms of compromise reads as under:-

"1. That the Appellant No.1 herein is the wife of late R. Rangaswamy S/o. Late T. Rangappa and Appellant Nos.2 and 3 and Respondent herein are their children.

2. The Appellants herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.7188/2016 before the Hon’ble Court of the III Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-25), seeking for the relief of Partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties therein against the Respondent.

3. The Hon’ble Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 10/09/2020 dismissed the said suit. Against the said judgment and decree of the Hon’ble Trial Court, the appellants herein have preferred the above appeal.

4. That during the pendency of the present appeal, the parties to the above proceedings with an intention of settling the dispute amicably, resolving the difference of opinion between themselves being blood related to each other with the relation as stated supra have now entered into a settlement and in terms of the settlement the parties to the proceedings have unequivocally admit that all the suit schedule properties are the absolute properties of late R. Rangaswamy S/o. Late T.Rangappa. The said Late R. Rangaswamy during his lifetime was in exclusive, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till his death along with his family as stated supra, which continued by the parties to the above proceedings as Legal representatives of Late R. Rangaswamy after his death.

5. The settlement arrived between the parties is reduced into writing which reads as under;

6. That suit schedule “B” property is repeated and also described as item No.42 of the suit schedule “A” property. Likewise items No 32 and 33 are repeated and also described commonly as item No. 41. Likewise item No. 37 is repeated and also described as item No. 40. The said repetition description of the items is read over by the parties, duly understanding the description admit the same with regard to identity of the same and also agree that the said repeated item Number properties are one and the same.

7. That, the Appellants herein have accepted the findings of the Hon’ble Trial Court on Issue No.2 of the Judgment dated 10/09/2020 with regard to a Will dated 29/05/2010, wherein it is held that the Respondent herein has proved the valid execution of the Will dated 29/05/2010 by Late R.Rangaswamy S/o Late T. Rangappa in respect of the suit schedule “B” property. Thus the Appellants and the Respondent unequivocally admit that the suit schedule “B” property shall exclusively belong to the respondent herein i.e., Dr.