IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1389 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SMT SUNANDA M SALIAN

W/O LATE MANIRANJAN R AMIN

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

R/AT MANU NILAYA

BAPPANADU VILLAGE,

MANGALURU TALUK

D.K. DISTRICT-574 154.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MARLA M.J, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MRS VIDYAVATHI R SALIAN W/O RAGHUNATH S SALIAN

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

Digitally signed

by PANKAJA S R/AT MANU NILAYA

Location: HIGH BAPPANADU VILLAGE,

COURT OF MANGALURU TALUK

KARNATAKA

D.K. DISTRICT

NOW RESIDING AT A-402,

AMEYA APARTMENTS

CHOWGLE NAGARAM SAVARPADA

BORIVILLI (E) MUMBAI-66

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MEGHACHANDRA D.N, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.04.2019 PASSED IN RA NO.56/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.09.2014 PASSED IN OS NO.35/2012 ON THE FILE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM., KARKALA.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

The vakalath filed by the learned counsel Sri Meghachandra D.N., for the respondent is taken on record. 2. A compromise petition filed by the learned counsel appearing on either side under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC along with an affidavit of both the parties separately is taken on record. The same reads as under:

"MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 The Appellant and the Respondent jointly submit as under:

1. It is submitted that, Appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2019 passed by the IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K Mangaluru in R.A No.56/2014 wherein First Appellate Court had set aside and reversed the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2014 passed by the senior Civil Judge & ACJM Karkala in O.S No.

35/2014.

2. It is submitted that, the Appellant and the Respondent shall be collectively referred to hereinafter as "PARTIES" for the sake of brevity.

3. It is submitted that, the appellant and respondent are Sister-in-laws by relationship and the dispute had arisen due to some misunderstandings between them, which led to the filing of the suit in O.S No 35/2014 by the Respondent herein. However, the said suit was dismissed by the trial court against which the respondent herein filed R.A No.56/2014. However the First Appellate Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2019 had allowed the appeal and consequently allowed the suit.

Therefore the appellant herein who was the defendant in the suit has filed this appeal.

4. Appellant and Respondent due to the close relationship and due to the interference of the family daiva (deity) in the month of May 2025 have settled the dispute involved in the suit. And the respondent herein has let off her claim in the suit.

5. In that view of the matter the Appellant and Respondent after thorough deliberation and mutual consultations have entered into a compromise, and they have decided to settle their disputes amicably as continuation of litigation would cause severe inconvenience to both the Parties.

NOW THE TERMS OF THE COMPROMISE WITNESSTH AS FOLLOWS;

i. The Respondent undertakes to withdraw the claim in the suit and she would not press the execution of judgment and decree dated 26.04.2019 passed by the IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K Mangaluru in R.A NO.56/2014. Therefore the respondent herein in lieu of the compromise arrived agrees to allow the above appeal.

ii. That the compromise entered in to between the parties is valid, legal and the same is not opposed to any law. The above compromise is entered between the parties out of their free will, without any threat, any force, coercion and undue influence in entering this compromise.

iii. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, except