Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26195

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anu Sivaraman, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ
R Gurulingappa – Appellant
Versus
R Saroja – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 643 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prakasha.A.
For the Respondents: Rakesh Kumar, Vedanth Vijayan

A court may dispose of an appeal in terms of a compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC when parties voluntarily reach a settlement, making the terms binding upon them and allowing for the refund of court fees.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 23 Rule 3 - Partition suit - Settlement of dispute - Compromise petition filed by the parties - The court recorded the compromise and observed that the parties, having agreed to the terms of settlement, are bound by the same - The appeal was disposed of with a direction to draw the decree in terms of the compromise and order for the refund of court fees under the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1958. (Paras 3, 5, 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The parties were involved in a partition suit regarding five properties, culminating in a Final Decree Proceeding (FDP). The appellants challenged the Final Judgment and Decree. During the appellate proceedings, all parties reached an amicable settlement, consolidating their agreements into a Joint Compromise Petition. This petition detailed the specific distribution of property shares, monetary settlements, and the validity of a Will.

Findings of Court:
The court satisfied itself that the compromise was entered into voluntarily and that all parties were correctly represented, including through Power of Attorney holders where necessary. The court accepted the memorandum of compromise and directed that the decree be drawn accordingly, incorporating the survey sketches as part of the settlement.

Issues: Whether the appeal should be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition reached between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where parties voluntarily settle their disputes and execute a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3, the court, upon verification of parties and terms, shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with the agreed settlement to ensure finality and equity.

Result: Appeal disposed of as per the compromise decree.

Table of Content
1. appellate court reviewing a partition decree via rfa. (Para 1 , 2)
2. terms of the compromise agreement between parties settling property disputes. (Para 3)
3. court acceptance of compromise and procedural disposal of appeal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2026 in F.D.P.No.127/2021 on the file of the XXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-31). The suit was filed for partition and separate possession.

2. We have heard Shri Prakasha A, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Rakesh Kumar for Caveator / respondent Nos.1(a) to (c), respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Shri Vedanth Vijayan for respondent No.5(a).

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on either side that the parties have entered into a compromise and that all disputes among them in respect of the suit schedule properties stand compromised between the parties. A Memorandum of Compromise petition is also filed, which reads as under:

“MEMORANDUM OF JOINT COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

The Appellants and the Respondents, above named, most humbly submit as follows -

1. It is submitted that the present R.F.A No. 643/2026 has been filed by the Appellants challenging the legality and validity of the Final Judgement and Decree dated 31.01.2026 passed by the XXX Addl. City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-31) in F.D.P No. 127/2021 (Hereinafter referred to as the "Final Judgement and Decree" in short). It is the contention of the Appellants that the Judgement and Decree suffer from various legal infirmities, is bad in law and on facts and is hence liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.

2. It is submitted that the Final Judgement and Decree in F.D.P. No. 127/2027 arises out of Judgement and Decree dated 25.02.2020 passed by the XXX Addl. City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-31) in O.S. No. 137/2010 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Preliminary Judgement and Decree' in short).

3. It is submitted that the subject matter of the dispute between the Appellants and Respondents before the Trial Court is with respect to partitionof5 properties of which the Appellants and the Respondents are in joint ownership and peaceful possession of. The said 5 properties have been described in R.F.A No. 643/2026 which has been reproduced hereunder as "Schedule Properties" for the sake of convenience. A brief description of the Schedule Properties and their respective Schedule Headings. are provided hereunder -

a) Schedule A Immovable Property bearing BBMP Old PID No/Khata/Survey No: 29-9-48 situated at situated at Municipal No. 48, Shiva Guru Prasad Binny Mill Road, Cottonpet, Bengaluru 560053 with a two-floor building.

b) Schedule B-Immovable Property bearing BBMP Old PID No./Khata/Survey Nos. 29-9-36 and 29-9-37, corresponding to Municipal Nos. 36 and 37 situated at Binny Mill Road, Cottonpet, Bengaluru City 560053 with a house.

c) Schedule C-Immovable Property bearing BBMP Old PID No./Khata/Survey No. 29-8-2situated at Municipal No. 2, Attimaramma Temple Street, 1st Cross Road, Cottonpet, Bengaluru City with a house.

d) Schedule D (Item No. 1) -Land bearing Survey No. 134/3, measuring 1 Acre, out of the total extent of 2 Acres 6 Guntas in Survey Nos. 134/3 and 134/7, situated at Narayanakere Village, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.

e) Schedule D (Item No. 2) Land bearingSurvey No. 134/7, measuring 1 Acre6 Guntas, out of the total extent of 2 Acres 6 Guntas in Survey Nos. 134/3 and 134/7, situated at Narayanakere Village, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.

f) Schedule E Immovable Property bearing BBMP old PID No.29-8-9 and CTS No.1253, 1254, 1261 situated at Municipal No.9, Attimaramma Temple Street, 1st Cross Road, Road Binny Mill Road, Bengaluru City-560 053 with a building.

4. It is submitted that the description of the Schedule Properties have been updated in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26195

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAnu Sivaraman, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJR Gurulingappa – AppellantVersusR Saroja – RespondentREGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 643 OF 2026

A court may dispose of an appeal in terms of a compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC when parties voluntarily reach a settlement, making the terms binding upon them and allowing for the refund of court fees.

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anu Sivaraman, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ
R Gurulingappa – Appellant
Versus
R Saroja – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 643 OF 2026