Agreement Holder And Sale-Deed Buyer Split Disputed Bagalkot Plot Equally, Karnataka HC Accepts Settlement

The appellant sued for specific performance of an agreement concerning Plot No. 2, Model ‘C’ Special, Sector No. 2, Navanagar, Bagalkot.

The trial court decreed specific performance on 27 August 2019; the first appellate court allowed the respondents’ appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on 30 October 2025.

The appellant filed this miscellaneous second appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) CPC.

During its pendency, the appellant and respondents 1 and 2 filed a compromise petition agreeing to divide the property equally, with the appellant retaining the western portion and respondent 2 the eastern portion, and setting out terms for access and mutation.

Respondents 3 to 6 were stated to be the vendors of respondents 1 and 2 and had no subsisting interest; respondents 7 to 9 were formal parties.

Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides the basis for recording a lawful compromise in a suit or proceeding.

The Court must be satisfied that the compromise is lawful before accepting it.

The appeal was brought under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) CPC, which concerns appeals from certain remand orders.

The judgment cites no precedent.

The parties appeared before the Court and filed a written compromise signed by them and countersigned by their counsel.

The Court questioned the parties about its contents; they confirmed that the terms had been explained to them in Kannada and that they had signed voluntarily, without duress or undue influence.

On perusing the terms, the Court found the compromise legally valid and accepted it under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

It directed the Registry to draw a decree and made the compromise petition part of that decree.

The matter before the trial court was consigned.