MUNIREDDY Vs. N. R. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in this second appeal, as of now, is: "Whether the compromise petition filed by the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 4 on 10.4.2002 and accepted by this Court is genuine and legal". This question arises for consideration in the light of the following circumstances.

(2.) The appellants were the owners of the 14 sites bearing Kaneshumari No.530 to 543 (totally measuring 1 acre 3 guntas) in Sy.No.92 of Chandapura, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk and 36 vacant sites bearing Kaneshumari No.544 to 579 (totally measuring 2 acre 8 guntas) in Sy.No.93/2 of Chandapura, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The first respondent, as duly constituted attorney for the appellants vide the separate Power/s of Attorney dated 09.01.1989, executed sale deed dated 24.08.1989 transferring the aforesaid properties (referred to as the 'subject properties') in favour of the second respondent.

(3.) The appellants, who had filed earlier suit in OS No. 563/1989 and 568/1989 on the file of the Munsiff, Anekal for permanent injunction only against the first respondent, filed the present suit in O.S No.3/1990 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) (for short, the civil Court) against the respondents for declaration that the sale deed dated 24.08.1989 executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent as null and void and not binding on them, and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction not to create third party rights acting pursuant to such sale deed.