Syed Unis and Others vs Smt. Abida Begum and Others

S. Abdul Nazeer

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 505/2007 dated 18.4.2011 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), and JMFC, Sorab, confirming the judgment and decree dated 3.10.2007 in O.S. No. 164/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Sorab. The appellants are defendants in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the above suit for possession of the suit schedule property on the basis of her title. The trial Court has decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the said property. The trial Court has directed the appellants herein (defendants in the suit) to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants challenged the said judgment and decree by filing an appeal in R.A. No. 505/2007 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by its judgment and decree dated 18.4.2011. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have filed this appeal.

Learned Counsel for the parties submit that, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties They have filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reporting the terms of settlement, which are as under:

Compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC

The appellants and respondent respectfully submit that they do hereby settle the dispute in the above appeal in the following terms and conditions:

The respondent has received Rs. 2,90,000/- (Two Lakhs and Ninety Thousands only) by way of cash on 15.9.2012 towards full and final settlement in respect of the suit schedule property.

The Appellants be declared as the owners of the suit schedule property.

The respondent hereinafter shall not have any manner of right whatsoever in the schedule property.

The respondent shall relinquish all her rights, title and interest over the schedule property.

Wherefore, the appellants and respondent humbly pray that this Hon''ble Court be pleased to set aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below in O.S. No. 164/2003 dated 3.10.2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Sorab, and R.A. No 505/2007 dated 18.4.201 1 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Sorab, and to pass a decree in terms of the compromise petition in the interest of justice and equity.

Schedule

Property bearing site No. 1, Assessment No. 94A, 94B, property No. 561, situated behind Panchayat Market, Sorab Town, Sorab Taluk, Shimoga District, measuring 21x66 feet including the Mangalore tiled house bounded by:

East: Road

West: Municipal Property adjacent to site No. 2

North: Road

South: Conservancy Road.

The appellants and the respondent are present before Court and are identified by their respective learned Advocates. The application filed for reporting the settlement has been signed by the appellants, respondent and their learned Advocates. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the settlement arrived at by the parties is lawful, just and reasonable. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2011 in R.A. No. 505/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Sorab and the judgment and decree dated 3.10.2007 in O.S. No. 164/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Sorab, are hereby set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 164/2003 before the trial Court is hereby dismissed. Since the respondent- plaintiff has relinquished her right, title and interest over the suit schedule property in favour of the appellant-defendants, the appellant-defendants are declared as the owners of the said property. Since the compromise entered into between the parties creates right over the suit schedule property in favour of the appellant-defendants, they are directed to register this decree before the jurisdictional Sub Registrar. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Draw the decree accordingly. In view of disposal of the appeal as above, I.A. 1/2012 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly dismissed.