Case Note & Summary
The matter before the Supreme Court arose from a property partition dispute among family members. The petitioners/appellants and the respondents were parties to an appeal concerning division of schedule properties. On January 16, 1996, the Supreme Court had made an observation, subsequent to which the parties settled their dispute amicably and filed a compromise memo before the Court. An application for impleadment was also ordered by the Court. The compromise memo contained detailed terms of allotment of properties among the parties. As per the settlement, 2 acres 20 gunthas in 'B' Schedule property out of 6 acres 8 gunthas in Survey No. 194 were to be retained by Vijayappa (Appellant No. 4) towards the Western side of a 30 feet road that runs from North to South through the centre of the property. The remaining portion of Survey No. 194 was to go to Respondent R. Balakrishnappa. Both Vijayappa and Balakrishnappa were to leave 15 feet each from their individual shares for the formation of the 30 feet road, and the existing road running from East to West was to be retained and used as a common passage for all. Additionally, 3 acres 18 gunthas in Survey No. 10 as mentioned in 'D' Schedule and house property as mentioned in 'F' Schedule were allocated. Shri H. Nagarajappa, Appellant No. 6, was to retain properties purchased by him through registered sale deeds dated 10.4.1961, to the extent of 4 acres 8 gunthas out of 6 acres 8 gunthas from Survey No. 15, which he had already alienated in favour of his son Malikarjunappa. The compromise also noted that from Survey No. 194, R. Vijayappa had sold 1 acre 8 gunthas to N. Malikarjunappa, son of H. Nagarajappa, for Rs.50,000 by way of sale deed dated 24.6.1995. It was agreed that Malikarjunappa would sell the said land back to Vijayappa for the same amount of Rs.50,000 and that Vijayappa would get the land registered in his name after the Court passed the order in terms of the compromise application. The properties going to Balakrishnappa, Respondent No.1, were specified as follows: 3 acres 26 gunthas in 'B' Schedule property in Survey No. 194, being the remaining portion after Vijayappa retained his share; remaining 2 acres in 'A' Schedule property to the South side of the property from Survey No.15; 0.25 gunthas in 'C' Schedule property in Survey No.82; and house property in 'E' Schedule property. Appellants No. 3 Rethnamma and No. 5 Girijamma also consented to the division of the schedule properties as they had no claim over the petition schedule properties. The core legal issue before the Court was whether the appeal should be disposed of in terms of the compromise memo. There were no adversarial arguments, as both sides jointly submitted the compromise memo and requested the Court to record it. The Court accepted the compromise memo and disposed of the appeal in terms of it. It specifically held that the respondent had no manner of right or interest in respect of the claim and in respect of the interest held by appellants 4 and 6. The final decision was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the compromise memo, with no order as to costs. The judgment primarily favored neither side exclusively, as it was a mutually agreed settlement recorded by the Court. No statutory provisions were cited in the judgment.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise of Appeal - Settlement Before Supreme Court - Not mentioned - Parties to a partition appeal filed a compromise memo before the Supreme Court after an application for impleadment was ordered; the Court accepted the memo and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement, holding that the respondent had no manner of right or interest in respect of the claim and the interest held by appellants 4 and 6. Held that the appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise with no costs (Para 1). B) Property Law - Partition - Consent Terms and Property Allotment - Not mentioned - The compromise allocated specific shares in various survey numbers, including a direction for the formation of a 30 feet road with equal contribution of 15 feet from each of two parties and retention of an existing East-West road as common passage; it also provided for reconveyance of 1 acre 8 gunthas sold by R. Vijayappa to N. Malikarjunappa for Rs.50,000 back to Vijayappa for the same amount. Held that the parties' settlement is binding and the appeal is disposed of accordingly (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal should be disposed of in terms of the compromise memo filed by the parties.
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of in terms of the Compromise Memo. The respondent has no manner of right or interest in respect of the claim and in respect of the interest held by appellants 4 and 6. No costs.
Law Points
- Compromise of appeal
- settlement of partition dispute
- binding nature of consent terms
- disposal of appeal in terms of compromise
- no adjudication on merits
