This appeal is filed by the plaintiff under Section 96

of Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment and

decree dated 14.07.2022 in O.S.No.7566/2016 passed by

the V Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-13),

whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.

3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific

performance of the contract dated 13.06.1984. The suit

came to be rejected by order dated 14.07.2022. Being

aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.

After service of notice, respondent – defendant has

appeared through advocate. Now the parties have settled

the matter and they have filed the compromise petition

- 3 -

under Order 23 Rule 3 r/w. Section 151 of CPC. The

compromise petition is extracted below:

“The Parties beg to state as under:

A. The entire property that is subject matter of

litigation is described in Schedule 'A' to this

petition. The Parties understand that the Appellants

have had the benefit of being in possession of the

Schedule 'A' Property after getting the tenants

evicted and they have also incurred certain

expenditure towards the same. The Parties further

agree that the Respondent is a Trust and has not

benefitted from the Schedule 'A' Property and due

to pendency of litigation since 1987 onwards, no

improvement could be done to the Schedule 'A'

Property, and as such, the Respondent could not

get any revenue from the Schedule 'A' Property

except Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)

being advance sale consideration being received

from the Appellant herein and incurring substantial

expenditure for fighting the litigations.

B. The Parties further submit that after the

litigation between the parties reached this Hon'ble

Court and after hearing the parties for some time,

this Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the Parties

- 4 -

to explore possibilities of settlement and to end all

litigations. In pursuance to the same, the Parties

have had detailed discussions and with the help of

professionals and settled all their disputes on the

following terms:

1.

The Appellant restricts its right to seek

specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dt:-

13.06.1984 only to the extent of the sale deed

being executed in terms of this compromise

petition. The parties also hereby cancel the Power

of Attorney executed dt: 18.11.1983/18.11.1984

and the cancelled original Power of Attorney is

delivered back to the Respondents.

2.

The Appellant and Respondents jointly agree

and confirm that they shall divide the Schedule

Property as under:

a)

An area to the extent of 6,123 square feet

ear-marked in the Sketch annexed hereto as

ANNEXURE A and marked in Blue colour and which

is morefully described in Schedule 'B' hereunder

and hereinafter referred to as the "Schedule B

Property", shall be allotted to the Appellant in lieu

of the Appellant giving up its claim to the entire

property, and the balance area shall be retained by

the Respondents.

- 5 -

b) An area to the extent of 10,318 square feet ear-

marked

in

the

Sketch

annexed

hereto

as

ANNEXURE A and marked in green colour, and

which is morefully described in Schedule 'C' and

hereinafter

referred

to

as

the

"Schedule

C

Property", is retained by the Respondents.

3.

The Respondents, represented by all its

trustees, shall execute and register a sale deed, the

mutually agreed draft of which is annexed hereto as

ANNEXURE B, in favour of the Appellant in respect

of Schedule 'B' property on the same date as the

submission of this compromise petition before this

Hon'ble Court, or latest on the immediately

succeeding date. The advance paid by the Appellant

to the Respondent No.1 in terms of the Agreement

of Sale dt:- 13.06.1984 and the expenditure of Rs.

14,00,000/- incurred by the Appellant to evict the

tenants and secure vacant possession of the

Schedule 'A' Property fo