Parties may settle disputes amicably through a lawful compromise, which is accepted by the court.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 02.03.2022 passed in O.S.No.673/2014 by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Benglauru Rural District, Bengaluru.

2. During the pendency of this appeal, the parties have settled the dispute amicably.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents filed the memorandum of compromise petition and submit that the same is prepared based on the instructions of the parties.

4. The appellants and respondents are called out, they are present. They state that the memorandum of compromise is prepared based on their instructions and after understanding the contents of the compromise petition, they have affixed their signatures and thumb impression on their own volition.

5. The terms of the compromise petition reads as under:

"Memorandum of Compromise petition filed by the appellants and respondents under Order XXIII, Rule 3 R/W Sec. 151 of C.P.C:-

The appellants and the respondents above named beg leave to submit as follows;-

1) It is humbly submitted that the respondents/Plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.673/2014 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru against the defendants seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of their one fourth (1/4) share over the suit schedule properties and for manse profits. The said suit is decreed on 02.03.2022 and aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, the appellants herein who were the defendants 1 to 5 have filed the present appeal.

2) It is humbly submits that one Hanumanthappa resident of Mugabala village, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural district had two sons viz. (i) Byrappa and (ii) Venkatarayappa. The said Hanumanthappa and his two sons are not alive. The respondents 1 to 5 are the decedents of Byrappa S/o Hanumanthappa. Similarly, the appellants 1 to 4 and respondents 6 to 9 are the decedents of Venkatarayappa, S/o Hanumanthappa. All the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of late Hanumanthappa and item No:6 and 8 of the suit schedule properties was acquired by first appellant but in the name of his wife.

3) It is humbly submits that at the intervention of relatives and elders of both the appellants and the respondents, the parties to this first appeal agreed and decided to settle the dispute amicably by reporting the present compromise. The parties hereby and hereunder agreed to divide and take possession of the suit properties by a decree of compromise. The shares of the respective parties are shown specifically schedule in the compromise petition.

4) As per the settlement arrived between the parties, the ‘A’ Schedule properties are allotted to the first appellant. The plaint schedule items bearing No: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 are covered by the A schedule of the compromise petition. A portion of the item No: 10 wherein house exists is shown as item No. 8 to 11 in the A schedule. The ‘B’ Schedule properties are allotted to the respondents 1 to 9 jointly of the present appeal, The plaint schedule items bearing No: 3, 4 and 9 are covered by the B schedule of the compromise petition. In the plaint schedule and measurements sum of the items are wrongly mentioned and it is corrected in the present compromise petition.

5) That the second appellants is not claiming any share and has duly relinquished his joint rights in the suit schedule properties in favour of first appellant under registered release deed dated. 24/02/2025, bearing No.HSK-4-01027-2024-25 and received a sum of Rs. 50 Lakhs as consideration towards his share from the first appellant.

6) Similarly, all the L.Rs of third appellant and the fourth appellant have relinquished their joint rights in the suit schedule properties in favour of first appellant under