B R VEERABASAVARADHYA Vs. DEVOTEES OF LINGADGUDI MUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted

(2.) We have heard counsel on both sides

(3.) It is not in dispute that in OS No. 22 of 1962 filed against five persons, there was a compromise by the appellant. The appellant was impleaded as first defendant. Pursuant to compromise memo dated 7/6/1972 filed under Order 23, Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code, the court passed a decree in terms thereof. The clauses contained in the memo were that the appellant shall continue to be in occupation as Manager of the Trust for its administration and the deities installed in the plaint schedule property. The two shops built by the appellant in the shrine were declared to be continued to be in his possession subject to his performing the worship in the same way as was done by his ancestors. The money deposited by him in OS No. 463 of 1964 on the file of Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City was agreed to be refunded to him and half the institution fee was also to be refunded. In furtherance thereof, the appeal was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the matter afresh as against Defendants 2 to 4. In furtherance thereof, the suit came to be dismissed. Again, a compromise memo was filed by Defendants 2 to 4 in the High court and the High court in the impugned order dated 25/1/1993 made in RFA No. 176 of 1980 recorded the compromise as against Defendants 2 to 4 and disposed of the matter in terms thereof. Thus this appeal by special leave