AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this second appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.134/2004 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Tiptur, the parties have entered into settlement in terms of the compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
At the time of filing of this compromise petition, both the appellant-Kanikmeri and the respondent-Chinnappa are present before the Court. According to them, the suit in O.S.No.134/2004 was filed seeking specific performance of agreement dated 31-03-2003 which is with reference to 05 guntas of dry land at Sannenahalli village, Nonavinakere Hobli, Tiptur Taluk. The suit of the plaintiff was admittedly dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 01-09-2006, as against that order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.143/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Tiptur wherein the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was modified, decreeing the suit only to an extent of refund of earnest money of Rs.60,000/- paid under the agreement of sale dated 31-03-2003. It is stated that, in terms of the judgment and decree dated 22-10-2008 in R.A.No.143/2006, the defendant-Chinnappa in the original suit had deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- before the Trial Court. Subsequently, this second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in the original suit seeking larger relief as prayed in the suit for specific performance.
Admittedly, this second appeal was taken up for consideration by formulating the substantial questions of law on 14-07-2010. In the meanwhile, when this matter had ripened for final hearing, the appellant and respondent have entered into a settlement, which is reduced into writing by way of compromise petition in I.A.No.3/2017 dated 28-08-2017.
The parties who are present before the Court would submit that they have understood the contents of the compromise petition and accepted the same as true and correct. In terms of the compromise petition, it is stated that the respondent who has already deposited Rs.60,000/- pursuant to the judgment in R.A.No.143/2006 is permitted withdraw the same. In addition to that, a sum of rs.15,000/- is also paid in favour of the respondent-Chinnappa which he has accepted. In view of that, he has agreed to convey the compromise petition property which is 04 guntas of land instead of 05 guntas which is the suit schedule property. The parties would further clarify the reduction of 01 gunta for the reason that the same has been utilized by the P.W.D. for formation of road. Therefore, what is remaining with respondent being 04 guntas of land, he has agreed to convey the same for a sum of Rs.75,000/- as stated supra.
Accordingly, the compromise petition is taken on record. In terms of the compromise petition, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.134/2004 and R.A.No.143/2006 are modified in terms of the compromise petition in I.A.No.3/2017.
The Registry is directed to draw up the decree in terms of the compromise petition, entered into between the parties.
In view of the appeal being compromised, the appellant is entitled to refund of court fee, as provided in the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.