The court upheld the validity of a mediation settlement, emphasizing its role in resolving disputes amicably and disposing of appeals accordingly.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

These two appeals arise from a common judgment and decree dated 27.02.2017 entered by the learned VII Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19), whereby, the appellants' O.S.No.8843/2005 having been dismissed, the respondents' O.S.No.9554/2007 came to be decreed. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 had said as under:

"Sri. N.R Nagaraj, learned counsel for the respondents files written submission.

Sri. Sridhar B.K., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. N.R. Nagaraj, learned counsel for the respondents submit that there is a proposal of settling the matter between the parties. With the consent of both the advocates, the matters are referred to mediation. Parties are directed to appear before the Mediation Centre, Bengaluru on 21.09.2024."

In terms of the above order, the parties appeared before the Mediation Centre and got the lis amicably settled in terms of memorandum of settlement sent by the Mediation Centre with a forwarding letter dated 29.10.2024 to the Registrar General of this Court.

2. Memorandum of settlement filed under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure Mediation Rules, 2005 is signed by all the parties. It is also asserted by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties before us this day. The text of the memorandum of settlement is as under:

"I. The appellant herein has filed a suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule property before the Court of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) in O.S.8843/2005. The said suit was dismissed vide Judgement and decree dated 27.02.2017. The Appellant herein Challenging the said judgement and decree in O.S. No.8843/2005 Dated 27.02.2017, preferred the above Regular First Appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide RFA No. 1062/2017.

II. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed a suit for ejectment of suit schedule property against the Appellant herein before the Court of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) in O.S.9554/2007. The said suit filed by Smt. Uriti Gyanamba and Smt. Uma Murthy (Respondents No.1 & 2 in RFA 1039/2017) was decreed and the trial court directed the Appellant Kamesh Murthy to vacate the suit schedule property of O.S. No.9554/2007 within a period of three months, to the respondents. Further, the appellant Kamesh Murthy was directed to pay rents at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent sisters viz. Uriti Gyanamba and Smt. Uma Murthy from the date of the suit till he vacates. Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, the appellant herein has preferred Regular First Appeal 1039/2017before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka.

III. The above said Regular First Appeals were referred to mediation for resolving the disputes between the parties. During the course of mediation, the Appellant and the Respondents along with their Respective counsel have participated in the mediation and the parties have resolved their dispute and have agreed to the following terms and conditions:

1. The appellant herein confirms the title of 50% of the larger suit schedule property in favour of Sri. Kalakar Murthy right from The date of the Registered Gift Deed dated 05.10.2005. Further, the appellant also confirms that the mother of the parties gifted the remaining 50% of the larger suit schedule property to Smt. Uriti Gyanamba and Smt. Uma Murthy together, through the registered Gift Deed dated 03.01.2006 and both sisters are the absolute owners of the remaining 50% of the larger suit schedule property effect from 03.01.2006.

2. The respondent No.2 Sri. Kalakar Murthy in RFA No. 1062/2017 has magnanimously agreed to give part of his property in value to Kamesh Murthy. But, Sri. Kamesh Murthy has been enjoying the property of Kalakar Murthy right from O