RACHAKONDAVENKAT RAO Vs. LATE R SATYA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Original Suit No. 4 of 1975 on the file of the learned District Judge. Adilabed was instituted by R. Satyabai widow of R. Gopal Rao against the three brothers of her husband. On July 13, 1978, a decree was made by the Court on the basis of a compromise between the parties. Under this compromise, the plaintiff was given certain properties exclusively while in some others she was given a joint interest. Plaintiff having died, her daughter and sole legal representative applied, in 1991, for passing a final decree. The defendants (appellants herein) objected inter alia on the ground that under a settlement arrived at in 1985, the parties have finally settled the issue of partition and hence there is no question of passing a final decree now. They also submitted that when certain differences arose again between plaintiff and defendants, they were settled under a memo of family arrangement dated July 5, 1992 , which was said to be signed by all the parties.

(3.) The learned District Judge held, after an enquiry that the 1985 settlement put forward by the defendants is true and, therefore, the application for passing a final decree is liable to fail. On revision (filed by the plaintiff), a learned single Judge of the High Court held that Order 23 Rule 3, as amended in 1976, does not recognize an oral settlement and hence the 1985 settlement could not have been accepted by the Court. The learned single Judge pointed out further that when even according to the defendants the 1985 settlement has been superseded by the 1992 settlement, the 1985 settlement could not be held to bar final decree proceedings. The learned single Judge also referred to the finding of the learned District Judge that the 1992 settlement/family arrangement is not established by the defendants.