Consent terms in civil proceedings can encompass agreements beyond the immediate subject matter of a suit if they include the subject property, aligning with procedural provisions.

JUDGMENT :

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

1. Registry to waive objections and register the matter.

2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith; at the request of and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of. Learned Advocate Mr. Bernard Fernandes waives service on behalf of the Petitioners and learned Advocate Ms. Sapna Joshi waives service for the Respondents.

4. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji in Special Civil Suit No.9/2023/A. By the impugned order, the Trial court has refused to pass a decree in terms of the Consent Terms dated 05.12.2024 arrived by the parties and has directed the parties to produce title documents of various properties listed therein.

5. The main contention argued by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira for the Petitioners was that the Court has failed to consider the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Civil Court by refusing to pass a Decree in terms of the Consent Terms submitted by the parties. He submits that the only reason for refusing such an order to pass a Decree was based upon the wrong understanding of Order 23, since the Trial Court was of the opinion that the properties which were not the subject matter of the suit could not be included in the Consent Terms; the Trial Court has erroneously held that the parties would have to show their title to such properties, for the Court to conclude that the Decree could be passed to include properties beyond suit property.

6. In the aforementioned suit, the suit property is land under Survey No.31/13 of village Goltim, which has a building standing thereon. The suit was filed for partition of that property and the building. The Defendants / Respondents herein filed Written Statement along with a Counter Claim challenging a Deed of Relinquishment dated 11.05.2022 executed by the Defendants to relinquish their right to the heirship in the estate of their parents, in favour of the Plaintiffs. 7. The Consent Terms dated 05.12.2024, which are on record, essentially record that the Defendants ratified and accepted the execution of the Relinquishment Deed in favour of the Plaintiffs, and the Petitioners/Plaintiffs now agreed to execute a Deed of Gift in favour of the Defendants to the extent of their 3/4^th undivided right in the suit property and the building. Stamp Duty was also paid along with the Consent Terms for the registration of the Consent Terms, which would operate as a transfer of the property in Survey No.31/13 of village Goltim in favour of the Defendants.

8. Since the parties have other disputes between them that relate to the family estate, they chose to record a global settlement on those disputes in the very same Consent Terms. In pursuance of this settlement, the other disputes brought about a global settlement to the allotment of family properties, which included three other properties, in which the Plaintiffs and Defendants claims Tenancy rights to the extent of half share in each of them. In respect of one of these properties i.e. land under Survey No.46/7 of village Goltim, the parties have obtained a joint declaration of Tenancy by the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi. In respect of the other two properties, the parties have produced before this Court, the Survey Record in form I and XIV, wherein the name of the father of Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No. 1 i.e. Francisco Benjamin Menezes is recorded in the Tenants column.

9. The provisions of Rule 23 of Order 3, if read clearly, do not act as an embargo o