ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Both these appeals are preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.77/2015 C/w. R.A.No.95/2015, whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2015 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.437/2004 and O.S.No.1035/2005, whereby the said suits were dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants and respondents in both the appeals submitted that they have amicably settled the dispute between themselves and have filed a Compromise Petition dated 30.04.2026, which reads as under:

“COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ORDER XXIII

RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

The Appellants and the Respondents above named beg to submit as hereunder:

1. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties to this Compromise Petition are referred to hereinafter as they were arrayed before the Trial Court, namely the Plaintiff (being the Appellant in the second appeal) and the Defendants (being the Respondents in the second appeal).

2. The Plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No. 437/2004 before the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore on 15.04.2004, seeking the following reliefs:

i. Declaring that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property having all right, title, possession and interest over the same;

ii. Declaring that the Sale Deed dated 01.10.2003 executed by Defendant No. 1 as the general power of attorney holder of the Plaintiff in respect of an extent of 37.08 Guntas of land out of the suit schedule property in favour of Defendant No. 2 and the Sale Deed dated 01.10.2003 executed by Defendant No. 2 as the general power of attorney holder of the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No. 1 to an extent of 04.08 Guntas out of the Suit Schedule Property which are registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri as Document Nos. 17020/2003-04 and 17024/2003-4, are illegal, fraudulent, collusive and sham documents and the same are not binding on the Plaintiff in any manner;

iii. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, servants, agents and all persons claiming through or under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property;

iv. Such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice and equity.

3. The case of the Plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the suit schedule property, being land bearing Survey No. 58. Khata No. 105, measuring an extent of 1 Acre out of 1 Acre 11 Guntas, situated at Thalaghattapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, was originally Inam land attached to Basaveshwara Temple, Thalaghattapura Village.

4. After coming into force of the Inam Abolition Act, the Plaintiff had filed an application before the Land Tribunal and the Plaintiff got occupancy rights over the suit schedule property by virtue of the order dated 28.06.1982 passed by the Land Tribunal.

5. The Plaintiff's case was that initially the total extent of the property bearing Survey No. 58 was 1 Acre 11 Guntas, out of which, the Government acquired an extent of 9 Guntas for the purpose of installation of Cauvery Water Pipeline. Again the Government acquired another 2 Guntas for the purpose of installation of IV Stage of Cauvery Pipeline.

6. It was the case of the Plaintiff that during the year 1995, there was a proposal for acquisition of the schedule property by the Government of Karnataka. The Plaintiff approached Defendant No. 2, who was a well-wisher and good friend of the Plaintiff, and expressed his innocence with regard to the acquisition proceedings and requested Defendant No. 2 to help in the matter.

7. The Plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney dated 11.12.1995 (registered as Document No. 577/1995-96 in Book IV, Addl. Volume No. 56 at pages 188 to 190 in the office of the Sub-Regist