The court may dispose of a second appeal in terms of a compromise petition filed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, provided the settlement is voluntary, lawful, and mutually agreed upon to resolve the dispute.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.70/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.04.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.971/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel for appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1 alongwith appellant and respondent No.1 are physically present before the Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who was defendant No.2 before the trial Court in O.S. No.971/2013. Respondent no. 1 was the plaintiff and Respondent no. 2 was the 1st defendant, the original owner of the suit schedule property. Since Respondent No.2 died, his legal representatives are brought on record as Respondent Nos.2(a) and 2(d) as per the order dated 10.01.2025.

4. Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05.02.2004 and for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount. The said suit came to be dismissed for the relief of the specific performance. However, plaintiff was granted the relief of refund of the earnest money of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of alleged agreement of sale dated 05.02.2004 till the date of the order of the Court and also entitled for future interest at the rate of 6% per annum till realization of the entire amount.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 preferred R.A. No.70/2022 and R.A. No.92/2022 respectively before the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff in R.A No. 70/2022 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the 1st defendant in R.A No. 92/2022 and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court came to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed with costs and the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 dated 23.2.2004 was held as not binding on plaintiff and defendant No.1 was directed to execute a sale deed in favour of plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of ₹45,000/- within one month from the date of the said judgment, failing which, plaintiff was given the liberty to get the registered the sale deed executed in his favour by due process of law. It is this judgment of the first appellate Court that is challenged by defendant no. 2 in this appeal.

6. During the pendency of this appeal, the legal representatives of respondent No.2/defendant No.1 were brought on record as Respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(d). Respondent No.1/plaintiff has appeared through an advocate. Legal representatives of Respondent No.2/defendant No.1 though served with notice, remained unrepresented.

7. Today, the parties to the proceedings, i.e. the appellant/defendant No.2 and respondent no. 1/plaintiff have filed a compromise petition before this Court under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC, to settle the matter amicably and to resolve the dispute once for all.

8. The legal representatives of 2nd respondent/defendant No.1 despite the service of notice, remained unrepresented and in fact, respondent No. 2/original defendant no. 1, had executed a registered sale deed dated 23.2.2004 in favour of appellant/defendant No. 2, and the same is not disputed.

9. The parties to the p