LALITH KUMAR Vs. AJITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.B. Sadashivappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are, the respondent herein filed a suit for partition against the petitioner who is her brother claiming 1/2 share or in the alternative for 1/4th share in the property held by them jointly. There are 21 properties out of which 18 properties were building properties situated in prime locality of Dharwar and three items are agricultural properties, in all valued at Rupees two crores. Subsequently, at the intervention of the elders and also after a detailed discussion, the parties entered into a compromise agreement wherein the property worth about one crore was allotted to the share of the respondent and the remaining to be enjoyed by the petitioner. However, when the compromise petition was presented before the Court, the respondent has resiled from the contract and therefore, the Court has held an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code which is numbered as IA-22 in O.S. No. 70/93 cannot be accepted and accordingly, the same was rejected by order dated 8.3.2000. The said order is questioned in this petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made available to the Court the certified copies of the application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code, objections filed by the respondent, evidence of the petitioner-defendant No. 1, evidence of the witness DW 2, evidence of Power of Attoney Holder of respondent (Plaintiff PW 1) and copy of the plaint, etc. He has also taken me through these documents produced in this case at the time of argument. I have also perused the order passed by the Court which is impugned in this petition. On the basis of these documents, the learned Counsel submitted that the respondent had sought for 1/2 share in the property or in the alternative only 1/4th share. At the intervention of the elders, well wishers of the family, the properties were partitioned by mutual consent and compromise petition was filed. Admittedly the respondent has not made any allegation that the compromise petition was obtained by playing fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or any other illegal meaz;s. Actual fact is that the respondent has not even made any allegation against the averments made in the compromise petition or even against the persons who settled the matter. The compromise petition was duly signed by the respondent, the petitioner, the advocates appearing for the parties and also the respectable persons who were responsible for settlement. Under that circumstances, he submitted that the Court ought to have accepted the compromise petition and in support of his arguments, he also placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 1993 Rajasthan 204; AIR 1930 Privy Council 158, ILR 2001 Karnataka 1498 and ILR 2000 Karnataka 86.