AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.—This appeal by defendant Nos. 13 and 14 is directed against an order passed by Fast Track and District and Sessions Judge, Anekal, Bangalore, dated 03.02.2012 in O.S. No. 161/2011, whereunder Trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff by allowing the application I.A. No. 2. Learned Advocates appearing for parties have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, whereunder plaintiff and defendant Nos. 13 and 14 have entered into a compromise, terms of which are as under:
It is submitted that at the instance of the well wishers both the appellant and 1st respondent have settled the above matter and hence the appellant and the 1st respondent have filed this joint memo as under:-
a. The 1st respondent undertaken to withdrawn the suit filed by her before the Senior Civil Judge at Anekal bearing OS No. 161/2011 in respect of the property bearing Sy. No. 53, measuring 01 acre 06 guntas situated at Booragunte Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk and undertakes that she does not have any valid right, title and interest over the said property.
b. Further the 1st respondent undertakes that the registered sale deed executed on 04.07.2005 executed in favour of appellant No. 1 is valid and also undertake that the same is binding on her.
c. The appellant in order to settle the dispute and even though know that the 1st respondent does not have any right, title and interest over the property in dispute only in order to buy peace has agreed to settle the matter with the 1st respondent and has paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) by way of demand draft bearing No. 591036 drawn on The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Koramangala Branch, Bangalore in favour of the 1st respondent.
d. The 1st respondent acknowledge the receipt of the said amount and confirm the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant No. 1 dated 04.07.2005 registered as document No. ANK-1-33288/2006-07 stored in CD No. ANKD 194 dated 21.03.2007 and confirm that the she does not have any valid, right title and interest over the said property and also declare that the appellants are the absolute owner of the said property.
e. Further the 1st respondent also undertakes to file memo for dismissal or withdraw of the suit bearing OS No. 161/2011 filed by her and does not prosecute the said suit in view of this joint memo.
Respondent No. 1 was initially served and represented by learned counsel. Subsequently, a memo of retirement came to be filed and as such Sri K.V. Lakshmanachar, learned counsel appearing for appellant was permitted to retire by order dated 22.11.2013 by accepting said memo of retirement. Subsequently, matter has been adjourned and today Smt. K. Geetha Kumari, learned counsel has sought permission of the Court to file vakalatanama on behalf of respondent No. 1. She has been permitted and vakalatanama filed by her is taken on record vide order of even date. It is also stated by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 that she has been appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/plaintiff before Trial Court in O.S. No. 161/2011.
Parties present before the Court admit due execution of compromise petition. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff who is present before the Court submitted that out of her own free, will, volition and without any force, threat or coercion she has affixed her signature to the compromise petition.
Sri K.V. Narasimhan and Smt. Hemalatha, learned Members of the Bar at the instance of Court have explained the terms of compromise petition both in Kannada Language and in Telugu Language to respondent No. 1/plaintiff, as she submitted that she is well conversant with the said language and she submits that the contents of compromise petition are true and correct. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are present before the Court and they also admit the due execution of compromise petition. They submit that after having understood the contents of compromise petition they have affixed their signatures. Learned Advocates appearing for the parties who were present before the Court, in token of having identified the parties, have also affixed their signatures to compromise petition. In that view of the matter, I do not find any impediment in accepting the compromise petition. Same is hereby accepted and in view of the terms agreed to between the parties, order passed by Trial Court is set aside and appeal is hereby allowed in terms of settlement arrived at. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff shall file necessary memo before the trial Court for withdrawing the suit O.S. No. 161/2011 as agreed to under the compromise petition.
Parties to bear their respective costs.