Karnataka High Court
D Shankar vs Adhimulan on 28 March, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT. j
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28"' DAY OF MA0R(iHwS20:I{.j2V ? J
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND B&'R AR:EDl):3Y VA
REGULAR FIRST APP_E;ARLI__I'£Qv.1O98'~OF'A2Q:j§O
REGULAR FIRST APVREA_LN0:S. 10121" 'I501 123 OF 2010
A %
REGUL.A'R '§Ii{ST__ No:.I164 TO 1167 OF 2010
IN R.I".A:I\IG:.i_O9&E§:32O %
BETWEEN"; _ I
D.S};1aIIkar,
< ._ S/a5:IIi'I{.C.,Dh0armaIII;' ---------- ~ "
I , Aged abQut36_yearS,
Re_s'id.iI1g._ at-N032,
' ~15" CTOSS; Costa Square,
BAanga10ra _44j'.5A6O O84. ...APPELLANT
(By S"1L<i.:B.K.Sampath Kumar, Advocate)
VT Adhimulan,
S/o.Ayal<ana,
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at No. 106,
5"' Cross, Cambridge Layout,
Halasuru,
Bangalore -- 560 008.
2. Gururaj V Patil,
S/o.V.R.Patil,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at 35"' Cross, 2,
Swimming Pool Extension,
Malleshwaram, .
Bangalore -- 560 003.7 g -
[Respondent No._2 is H «V _
impleaded f_x?ide};order°dated" I
28.3.2012] _ "7_.IQRESPONDENTS
(By Sh,ri~.i-R .B§Sadas:i3'«'appa,--._Advocate )
This Re'gular,"First.Appeal is filed under Section 96 read
with Order XLI "Rule 1. of 'Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
against the '"jud'gme,nt 7a_nd'*"'Decree dated 16.6.2010 passed in
O.S,No.2.6680/"2007 on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil
-'"~.,..,Judvge', i.Mayo Halli"U'nit, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for
» perrnanenty i'nj_u--n§:tion.
ii InR.'F,iA.ii'sNoi.tiii21/2010
I BETVX/_1:_i§,§
"I" Snit§'D.Rajeshwari,
__ __ g A __ 'W'/'o;K.C .Dharman,
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at No.32,
1" Cross, 'D' Costa Square,
Bangalore -- 560 084. K
(By Shri. B.K.San1path Kumar, Advocate)" .;«
AND: '
1. Adhimulan,
S/o.Ayakana,
Aged about 41 years,'
Residing atNo.106,' _ _
5"' Cross, Cambridge La;,§out,._
Halasuru, _ Y . 'l
Bangalore 7 56_(}"~OO8§; A
2. Gururajfx/'Patil;~5:*__ A
S/o.V.R.P.ati»1..;"é_ 1' . ..
Aged 'é1l)0,l11jj53
Residing at'3--'5Vdl._C'ross,_V"-..__ ~ A
Swirnmingl Poo'1Extenslion,t.---
Malleshvvararn; H A A »--
Bangalore 5156.0.'-003..
"i:_[R€$'pQI1'dCnt l\lo;'2'"i'sV
' 2 .,in1pVlea.ded'--vide order dated
_,28A.i?."j~c. _ . . RESPONDENTS
.R1B.'Badasivappa, Advocate )
A in A *****
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 read
A with"A_«Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
»_ "against the judgment and Decree dated 16.6.2010 passed in
ii __O.S.No.2668l/2007 on the file of the X111 Additional City Civil
5
N) j
Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, dismissing':_:thejfsu'iitl
§)errnanent in'unction. V g
NR.F.A.N .1122/2010
BETWEEN:
K.C.Dharman,
S/o.Chinnaraj Goundar,
Aged about 64 years,
Residing at No.32, .
15' Cross, 'D' Costa Squa_re:-- -_ 3- ,
Bangalore- 560 084. it f'_»....".-APPELLANT
(By Shri. B.K.Sa.inpath Ad~aé'gga:§)
AND: V
l. Adhirn11lan,_ R ._
S/o.,Ayaka'na_, 'V _
Aged about 41 __
Residing at No. 106, _ R' "
Sm CrosEs;..Carnb1f_idg-e Layout,
Halasuru, "
V-i.,Bian,galovre ~ 560"0G8.
Gur uraj ..V~' Patil,
_ "'.S,/oIVfR,Patil',"
' .__Aged about 53 years,
Residing" at 35m Cross,
Sxfvirnming Pool Extension,
or .. it ' alleshwaram,
"Bangalore -- 560 003.
[Respondent No.2 is
5
impleaded Vide order dated H
28.3.2012] ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. R.B.Sadasivappa, Advocate )
This Regular First Appeal is filed under, read .,
with Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil f_Procedurel,' V1908,
against the judgment and Decree dated..gil;6.l6_.20.yl'O--. p'asvsed,_.vini
O.S.No.26682/2007 on the file of the"XII-.1 _Additio,nal_C.ity,_Ciyil._
Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, 1ldlSlUlSSlITi'vgi"I'l1€__HS1.1li ford;
permanent injunction.
IN R.F.A. NO.l 123/2010,'
BETWEEN:
D.Balachande1';'
S/o.K.C.Dhar'rha'n::--...~5;7_ A A A
Aged about3.2fye;ars, ' _ ._
Residingat
15' Cross, '_D'iCosta Square';-..._ . f
Bangalore 560. 08.4, ...APPELLANT
(By Advocate)
.....
1 l...;-.Adhi'mulan; . V V "Aged'ab,out 41 years, Re~sidi_ng at No.l06, A. , 25"' Cross, Cambridge Layout, , Hjalasuru, 'Bangalore ~ 560 008.
"
2. Gururaj V Patil, S/o.V.R.Pati1, Aged about 53 years, Residing at 35"' Cross, Swimming Pool Extension, Malleshwaram, .
Bangalore ~ 560 003.
[Respondent No.2 is impleaded Vide order dated 1 28.3.2012] (By Shri. R.B.Sadasivapp£/0 Advotjateu . &***$*r This Regu1ar,__First'Appeal iisifiledi-undiier Section 96 read with Order XL1P.u1e of "'Code,io~f"'Ci.vi1 Procedure, 1908, against the,j'udgrn--e.n't and-..__dDe_cre'e'dated 16.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.2668,3/2007 on th.e'i'fi_ie._ of"the'gXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, .»M'ay.o"'Ha1V1*§:.;Unit«,.g'Bangalore, dismissing the suit for permanent i njun::,tion4., * ' ~. IN R.F.A.NO.11 it » DS;ShVan.kar, __ A S/.0-. Ki;C.,VD,harn:an, Aged aboutV',j3_6',1years, Residing' at. No.32, 13' Cross,g_'D' Costa Square, Bangalore ~ 560 084.
1 B.K.Sampath Kumar, Advocate) 5 'Li:;».1§EiSPO.ND13i§ITVpS:§ . . .APPELLANT AND:
Adhimulan, S/o.Ayakana, Aged about 41 years, it Residing at No.106, 5"' Cross, Cambridge Layout, Halasuru, ._ Bangalore ~ 560 008. _ ..'.RE_SP(_)NDENT (By Shri. R.B.Sadasivappa{ Advocate -- This Regu1ar_.First"'App.ea_1"is:'fi1edI under Section 96 read with Order XLl'"Ru1e 1, of "Coded of'-C..i.yi1 Procedure, 1908, against the3.j'u'dgn:e,nt ianid,I}ec1*eefdated 16.6.2010 passed in o.s.No.26680/2_0o7 orsy'thei'~fi'1e Voftithe; X111 Additional City Civil Judge,»'Mayo"';HaiI:if:.; Unit,» "Bang'a'1o-re, dismissing the suit for permanent i.njiun'ctio'n, . j IN R.F.A.,No. iris;/gmgr BETWEEN':~~ V A SIfC:1g_t':"=.D,Bajeshwiari, ~ ..... .. * _ W/o.K.:Ci.Dhiarman, _ Aged about 5] years, ' ~Res_iding 1St._Cross,. 'Costa Square, Bangalore 4 560 084. ...APPELLANT A. *(By'_Shri..B.K.Sa1npath Kumar, Advocate) Adhimulan, 3 S/o.Ayakana, Aged about 41 years, Residing at No. l06, Sm Cross, Cambridge Layout, Halasuru, Bangalore ~ 560 008. C A A ; A (By Shri. R.B.Sadasivappa, Advocate) is This Regular First Appeal-,is"v-filed."uI1deru.S£:CtlolnH96' read A"
with Order XLI Rule l of Code._of.,Civil'Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and Decree" dated'-._l6.6.20'lO" passed in O.S.No.2668l/2007 on tl1e~lli.1e"of Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Banghaloire,.--'«di's'rriis_s.ing the suit for Permanent iflju11Qti0F1. ll 7 IN R.F.A. i\*oi;*i.ii67:5r/2;)1yOij_.,.f 5 BETWrEE'NIll.l.A: X. ' S/o.Chinn'araji Goundar, .--
Aged about '64v_V'ye.ar's, ' Resijding. at No.32.'
- is V. - lst'-Cros,s; 'Dig CostaV"S'quare, » Bangalorey 4 .560 _084. . . .APPELLAN T i§}jKl,.Slampath Kumar, Advocate) ANl).~ A " if Adhimulan, . "S/o.'Ayakana, A ____Aged about 41 years, Residing at No.l06, St" Cross, Cambridge Layout, Halasuru, Bangalore -- 560 008. . .t. §RE_sPoNbENT'«vs (By Shri. R.B.Sadasivappa, Advocate') This Regular First Appe'al'~is filed under SV:e't;tjc>nH9H6l3read if with Order XLI Rule 1 of Code'-r.of Civ-it Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and Decr_eel'd_ate_d l6.6.«2()_l0_7passed in O.S.NO.26682/2007 on .'ill1'C._f1l€_'Olf XIll'AdditiOnal City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit;*Bangalora:,ldiismissing the suit for permanent injunction and "partly dec:*eei1ig: the counter claim filed by the defeiidantfiinithe ysluiitjthat ~against the plaintiff therein. "
IN R.F.A. No.ii.i6;7/2b1'0t:'i't'i~7tis .1 if BETW;_3E.N:ii i D.Balachande%r.v S/o.l_<.._C_Dharm_an,., Aged about 32 y"e--ars_,
- _ Re'sidin.g«.at No.32, ''''' "
' l_5''Cross;Costa Square, Ba.ngalo.r'e,f 560.-O84. ...APPELLANT (By"-Shri.' B.l{.lSampath Kumar, Advocate) .. _g . ' A .- Adhlimulan, A MS;/o.Ayakana, Aged about 41 years, Residing at No. 106, 5"' Cross, Cambridge Layout, 3 10 Halasuru, Bangalore -- 560 008. ..,RE1§'PO:N~l)E1§lT,: 0' « it (By Shri. R.B.Sadasivappa, Advocate) Z 4' V >l<>.'<>I<>!<* This Regular First App€'al'~i_s filed-uiider ;\'Ve'ctjion,,9p6:l3readCi"
with Order XLI Rule 1 of Codpeuof C1»-11, Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and DecreeVd_ate_d l6.6.«2V(V)_l()_ipassed in O.S.No.26683/2007 on >th'e.__f"1le_«of the XIII-Additionall City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit",*Bangalore,fdismissing the suit for permanent injunction and pa;-11y' allowinglfthle counter claim filed by the defentiant therein aga_ins,t»-the 'plaintiff herein. These«--'Avppe,a.1,s. c'o]:.11ng,_o;,1' admission, this day, the court deliveredthe folloivirig: C V tttt , EMENT These appealsil of -four different suits wherein the first respondent was the common defendant.
2.,_Accordi_ngltolthe appellants, since there was partial relief gira11ted,_._in favour of the defendant, it was necessary to A of it in four different appeals. However, the'-..appella.nt;siCand Respondents l and 2, have decided to settle the matters by filing a Compromise Petition. In that view of the u"i._1'natter, it would be necessary to dispose of I.A.s l, 2 and 0 '~,fipg3/2012 filed in R.F.A.1098/2010, 1121/2010, 1122/2010 and Z 11 1123/2010, in the first instance, since, it. is 4nec_essaryi.fa»s "a Inatter if of form, to allow those applicationsi'-:sfirs;'t;I in order to coiispider the Compromise Petitions that'llaI%e_V f1led*.in the abloive..,said,3 four-Vi"
appeals. Accordingly, since is noi'opposition to the applications being allowieu-d,_ 3/2012 in the respective appeals as aforesaid, The applicant to carry out the a_irI6lfij€l:':nent--. aci:ofdin'gly;*--l'' '' 3;'l'TheA:"jlear'rifed counsel,l"Shril R.B. Sadasivappa, takes notice l'=._for 1 the': "plro.posed~i.__Respondent No.2. Each of the applicatiolnsépfiledll L_1Ii(le1' ,order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of 951%,/2tllf89§1%ll"f123l38i0 alré ta eIE'%Il9§c§éf<9.1Orhe1§2frlIé29é§)d A as_fol1owisr_' " « it In I§;II:.;$;.No. 1098/2010 *~ Application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure A The parties above named state as follows:
Z 12 The Appellant and the Respondents submit that the-«___ dispute between them has been amicably settled' The Respondents in the above appeal statesasiill R ~. -1- follows:
That the Appellant isgthe in peaceful possession and.._vtlénjoyni'ent of schedule property ever an"d._that_i?the property is now That the property bearing to the 15' Respondei1'ti.Vp:y1'by lithe and the property"._'=.beari.ng in favour of the heifein are.orie a-ndtlie same property. 'That--tile-"tsaa.1Vé'»deeg-temuted in favour of the app.ellant document.
_ That "thei'sa1eV--.de'e_di'has been executed by a person not a_uthorized.___to do so by the owner of the suit Schedtile. property and subsequent to the sale in the appellant and hence is a void document.
"That the Respondents have no objection for the if sale deed dated 18.8.2003 registered as document A No.9l20/2003-O4 in the office of the sub registrar K.R.Puram Hobli Bangalore South Taluk executed 5 l3 in favour of the Respondent being declared as null__ and void and for a direction to be issued to canceli'-._l?,_ the same.
That the 1" Respondent has no title or int.ere'stV.o\{e'1< the suit schedule property andliilthat. possession of the same.
- That the Respondents ha__Ve._no objection'i,:for._'t«hisV Hon'ble Court to set asiilciepthse Judgrnennt and decree passed in ' «.fav.our. ' a. consequence thereof to decree the suit i_r"1_vV.'f?1:V',Qi1.r of the Appellant.' : "_-.
- That5-the"Res.p--onde.nt_s'will-7co5 operate in ensuring that_ Ap'pell_,a'1it::"'lerijoysVfthe suit schedule lpropertij/."aVnd:'<.theyT'~will jfurther sign any such docvur'nents..th-at are'*neCe'ssary for the purpose of the __samel.* the'l?l.....«Respondent withdraws all the A " '~ Q_bjeCtio'ns_ filed in the suit and in the appeal. . « __tl1e""l""' Respondent has no objection for this },_lo11~'.b'le Court to permit the amendment of the if appeal.
That the Respondents have handed over all the original title deeds to the Appellant including the sale deed executed in favour of the la Respondent. 6 14 That the Respondents will assist the appellant in--.___ obtaining the registration of the decree passed.'by:"~.._i"g this Hon'ble Court before the sub registra.:§_:i.aftierj----: this Hon'ble Court passes the order. That the 1" Respondent has not"e,xecu~ited.:_i agreement of sale or created any charge or, inanyi V' way encumbered the suit sicliedulefpropiertiy-.1 The appellant submits Respo«nd_ent_ihas been misled and tl1aty'*a_s re;sult"o_f same he had contended that the A sale R favour was a of the loss suffegrefdiib_yi:tl1e__ l*'-:_R_es~poi*ident,the Appellant has agreed» . 'V i'to7:_; ,_com_gpens--atei __ the? Respondent and ?accordin5g:ly.i__ pa_y'ir_1_g.a sum of ?l3,50,000/-- Q_{11p_'e_es ilal<h"fiftV thousand only) by way V_ of a iBanke.rVs'V--Cheque;fbearing No.250l 19 issued in fayour offtlie...._.l.5" Respondent dated §2l.03.20l21 d'1'aw.n" Canara Bank.
if Thatviithe-parties submit that this Hon'ble Court be to pass a judgment and decree in terms of * prayer sought for by the Appellant. if ii." That the parties have entered into this compromise out of their own free will and that there has been no threat, coercion or undue influence by any one. 5 15 Wherefore the Appellant and the pray that this Hon'b1e Court be above compromise and pass such orders asjsought for by the parties.
In R.F.A.NO.l l2 ll/2(p)lO:°' "
" Application unde.rOi'del" read with Section' 151 oflthle' Civilvfrocedure The state.asilfollows:
1. The Appellant submit that the disputed between beenlamicably settled
2. above appeal states as fo_llowsi" ..
'That the_iAppelllant is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit "property ever since 2001 and that the A is now well developed.
pp hat' the property bearing site No.4/3 sold to the ls' Respondent by the 2" Respondent and the property bearing No.8 sold in favour of the Appellant herein are one and the same property. 3» 17 That the Respondents will co-- operate in ensuring..___ that the Appellant enjoys the suit schedul.e"~.._4i_i'~.. property and they will further sign documents that are necessary for the purposeof' _ S3.fI1€.
That the 13' objections filed in the in the,ap»p_eal._i That the 1" Respondent has'-.no--..objec'tioin:Vilorgvithis Hon'ble Court ia._rnen:lment the appeal. a R R' A That the gRespondents1iiliayefishaiidedyiiioyer all the origina1l.,.:Vtitle'"deedig. including the sale the 1" Respondent.
williiassist the appellant in obtaining. of the decree passed by thig" rI,_A1uo1;.'bile.__Covurtiibefore the sub registrar after this Hon"bVlevCou1t passes the order. the 1" Respondent has not executed any ' ag'reeme-nt~* of sale or created any charge or in any
3.
"encumbered the suit schedule property. The appellant submits that the 1" Respondent has it l"'been misled and that as a result of the same he had contended that the sale deed executed in his favour was a valid document and in view of the loss suffered 5 Respondent with-diraws all _ the" it 18 by the 1" Respondent, the Appellant has agreed'to:'f.yi_i'~V.v compensate the Respondent and accordingly a sum of ?10,50,o00/g (Rupees ten lakh fif_t_\,/...t.l._io':=t1Vs_l21_vri1t:1 _ only) by way of a Bankers Cheque ' issued in favour of the 1'" l}R_e's--pondent_..y dated (22.03.2012) drawn on R
4. That the parties submit thatlllth:is=Hvon'.bie. be please to pass a judgment aind;_decree.i.ir;v terms of the prayer sought for by the
5. That the have compromise out of t'i3at.Vthere has been no thre_at,..coler.ci"o'n-I;or_un_due'influence by any one. i' Wherefo_re"j.the:_i'Appellant and the Respondents _ pray that this' Hionl'ible Court be pleased to record ii above compromise and pass such orders as sought ii " -. . g for parties.
' rif1'ii'i?.A;No.1 122/20% X X X Application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure The parties above named state as follows: 3
l9 . The Appellant and the Respondents submit that if dispute between them has been.a.rr1icably'settled_. "
The Respondents in the above ea,ppe_al siatesias R V follows:
That the Appellant is A.Atthe*AiVs_:abs'ol_ute 'downer: in peaceful possession and the suit schedule property.'/e'v*erf'since2flOlr'a,nd that the propertyiis well V' That the -p_ro_pert'}" bearing'-sitteiVl§Io}4/l sold to the 1"
:Riespon.d'ent 2"d._iiV"Respondent and the property' sold in favour of the Appe.llant herein areione and the same property. That the deed executed in favour of the nt is themonly valid document.
' deed has been executed by a person notiiauthorized to do so by the owner of the suit .. schedule property and subsequent to the sale in if favour of the appellant and hence is a void document.
That the Respondents have no objection for the sale deed in respect of site bearing No.4/l dated ll/O8/2003 registered as document No.8703/2003- 04 in the office of the sub registrar K.R.Puram 5 k' That the Respondents have handed over all the__.__' original title deeds to the Appellant including sale deed executed in favour of the 1" Respongdentj --. :_. ll 1' That the Respondents will assist the ap.pell'la,nt' A obtaining the registration of t!.ie"diecreel-.«passediTbyx'":7 this Hon'ble Court before the".Sub.l_ifé8isti'?1T this Hon'ble Court passesil_the..ordeir: A A m .That the 1" Respondent not any agreement of sale or any way encumbered the The Appellant. i'R'e'spondent has been €t1iis'1ed;:a.nLd same he had contended' in his favour '%2vas__ai and in View of the loss suffered b3z.v_.tl1le7.1i'" "-Respondent, the Appellant has agreed, to -cornpensate the Respondent and acicoijdinglya,i_s____Apaying a sum of ?I7 50 000/- 0 $eventeen lakh fifty thousand only) by Bankers Cheque bearing No.250ll8 favour of the 1" Respondent dated "§_;l1~.03.20l2z drawn on Canara Bank. That the parties submit that this Hon'ble Court be please to pass a judgment and decree in terms of the prayer sought for by the Appellant. 5 22 That the parties have entered into this comprontisye ' out of their own free will and that there no threat, coercion or undue influence any5one.§" ' Wherefore the Appellant andthe Re¢,p'onde_nts 3 pray that this Hon'ble Co'urt"be pleased' record above compromise and "Orders A as*so'ught for bythe partiesrli" l In R.F.A.No.1 123/zdié X ii G6 rim _Crder::Z',3' Route 3 read with Secti'ojg_ 151* ofithe_-Code oi: Civil Procedure lparties abo'V'e:ria:med s,tate as follows:
The' Aplpellaht Respondents submit that the dispute b.etween._then?i has been amicably settled ,, The Reslpondents in the above appeal states as foliows.:_ ither~'Appellant is the absolute owner in pea.ce':ful possession and enjoyment of the suit ~~ schedule property ever since 2001 and that the is property is now well developed. A' That the property bearing site No.4/4 sold to the 15' Respondent by the 2" Respondent and the E 23 property bearing No.9 sold in favour of Appellant herein are one and the same prope_rt'y--; «l ii That the sale deed executed in favo.urll"-of~tlrevvi' appellant is the only valid dociumerrt. A That the sale deed has been ekecitiitedl not authorized to do so':_by__the 'owner Offtili.e'.suit schedule property and subseqtient in favour of the aippellaritllulpapntdii_hence is "a "void document. ll f That thepResponiclents::'havg:./n_ofiobitection for the sale dead irf'grrrfiifibvertr-iirgiNo.4/3 and 4/4 dated -:2:Ct{O8/2()()_3'c:.':fj r;e'gi'steijedl as document tNd9'2r8'iL/20o3';04f'rgfthe riffitcé of the sub registrar South Taluk executed in favour of .the._Reslpondent being declared as null and void and for a direction to be issued to cancel '. . . . . .
if " _ 1" Respondent has no title or interest over vtheli."_'f:.uitj::.schedule property and that he is not in possession of the same.
That the Respondents have no objection for this Hon'ble Court to set aside the Judgment and decree passed in his favour and as a consequence 3 24 thereof to decree the suit in favour of Appellant.
h. That the Respondents will co--operate in i"
that the Appellant enjoys the sui.t"'"schedule property and they will documents that are necessary fo1'--.the..purposeof the same. __ V' I V
1. That the 1" Respondpent:'»v:_w'i.thdraws l_:V.al1 lithe objections filed suit and'. in appeal. j. That the lét Respondent for this Hon'ble of the appeak*s TQ;is ;.l', ; I k. That ujhayellianded over all the htigthai,itt1ti¢7itieetistto the.H"Alpipellant including the sale deed. of the 1" Respondent.
l. Thatathev Rlespondenits will assist the appellant in lobtaininig=t.he_ registration of the decree passed by _HQn'ble Court before the sub registrar after Court passes the order.
Tliatpthe ls' Respondent has not executed any * 'agreement of sale or created any charge or in any way encumbered the suit schedule property. The Appellant submits that the 1" Respondent has been misled and that as a result of the same he had contended that the sale deed executed in l'1lS7,faV'.(:)l1_I'l" l was a valid document and in view, ofthe loss suffereld._l_'; by the 15' Res ondent, the Ap ellant'ehasllagreedl'tofu,/.. p pr -
compensate the 1" Respondent afirlv. 'acco1'di'il1gply'_v'.is paying a sum of 38,50,000/--llV(R:upees thousand only) by wayof aslB'a'nl§crs'*ChequeVbearing No.§]jL9__§ issued "Respondent dated §;i_.Q;gQ_i;) drAaw11~6n
4. That this.bHon'ble Court be please _Vpa:sl_s}_a. decree in terms of the prayerllsourglltt tlseyilfiippelllalntl.
5. l'i*1_atl't4he' into this compromise out of their royyndfiee' and that there has been no threat, coercionlor undue influence by any one. vl.Wh:e'ref'ore the Appellant and the Respondents Hon'ble Court be pleased to record abov.e.l~compromise and pass such orders as sought "fo__r3by the parties.
XXXXX
4. Appellants namely D. Shankar, D. Rajeshwari, K.C. Dharman, and D. Balachandergnd the respondents namely