The court endorsed that compromises among parties are valid if conducted lawfully, supporting conflict resolution without legal impediments.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

Appellant No.5(b) and power-of-attorney holder of appellant Nos.5(a) and 5(c) to 5(g) are present and respondent No.2 and power-of-attorney holder of respondent Nos.3 to 5 are present, and they are identified by their respective counsel.

2. Appellant No.5(b) filed the general power-of- attorney, which discloses that appellant Nos.5(a), 5(c) to (g) executed a power-of-attorney in favour of appellant No.5(b) to enter into compromise. Similarly, respondent No.2 produced the general power-of-attorney executed by respondent Nos.3 to 5, which discloses that they have authorized respondent No.2 to enter into compromise.

3. Pursuant to the general power-of-attorneys executed by respondent Nos.5(a) and 5(c) to (g) and respondent Nos.3 to 5, appellant No.5(a) and respondent No.2 have jointly filed a memorandum of compromise petition, which reads as follows:

“1. The Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1/2001 filed the said suit in the Court of the Sr. Civil Judge at Sagar seeking for a decree for partition and separate possession of their shares in the assets of deceased Sabjan Sab in accordance with the last Will dated: 21-11-2000 (Exhibit D-2). In the said suit, the Plaintiffs sought for a partition and separate possession of their share in the assets of the deceased Sabjan Sab in accordance with the Will dated: 21-11-2000 of the Testator late Sabjan Sab. The suit schedule properties consisted of amount kept in fixed deposits and Savings Bank Account in the State Bank of Mysore, Sagar and fixed deposit amount in Ganapathi Urban Co-operative Bank at Sagar Gangaparameshwari Road in Sagar Town. and also open site situated at Gangaparameshwari Road in Sagar Town.

2. It is submitted that Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S. No. 1/2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Sagar along with some others filed O.S.No. 6/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Sagar seeking for a decree for partition and separate possession of their shares in respect of the assets of the deceased Sabjan Sab as per Will dated: 17-11-2000 (Exhibit P-5) and Will dated:21-11-2000 (Exhibit P-6).

3. It is submitted that since common questions of law and facts were involved in both the suits, O.S. No. 1/2001 and O.S. No. 6/2006 were clubbed and tried together and common evidence was recorded. The Trial Court by its Judgment and Decree dated: 30-06-2010 decreed O.S. No. 6/2006 and dismissed 0.S. No. 1/2001. Against the Judgment and decree dated 30-06-2010 in 0.S. No. 1/2001, the Plaintiffs in the said suit filed RA No.162/2010 before the 1^st Appellate Court. Whereas, against the Judgment and Decree dated: 30-06-2010 in 0.5. 6/2006, some of the defendants filed RA. No. 183/2010 before the 1^st Appellate Court. The 1 Appellate Court by its common Judgment dated: 04-03-2013 has dismissed both the appeals.

4 The Appellants being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated: 04-03-2013 in R.A. No. 182/2010 confirming the Judgment and Decree dated: 30-06- 2010 in O.S. No. 1/2001 have filed R.S.A No. 844/2013. Further, the Appellants being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated: 04-03-2013 in R.A. No. 183/2010 confirming the Judgment and Decree dated: 30-06-2010 in O.S. No. 6/2006 have filed R.S.A No. 845/2013.

5. It is submitted that at the time of execution of the said Wills, Le. Will dated: 17-11-2000 (Exhibit P-5), Will dated:21-11-2000 (Exhibit P-6) and the Will dated:21-11-2000 (Exhibit D-2), the Testator was seriously ill and was not in a sound state of mind and he died on 22-11-2000. There are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the said three Wills. Further, the Will dated: 17-11-2000 (Exhibit P-5), Will dated:21-11-2000 (Exhibit P-6) and the Will dated:21-11-2