The appeal was disposed of in accordance with the parties’ compromise petition.

The appellants had filed O.S. No. 4476/2006 seeking partition against their father and two other defendants.

The trial court dismissed the suit on 1 December 2022, and the plaintiffs appealed.

During the appeal, appellant No. 2, acting under a GPA for other parties, and respondent No. 10, acting under a GPA for respondent No. 9, presented a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC.

Under its terms, respondents 9 and 10 agreed to pay the appellants ₹1.6 crore in full and final settlement; the appellants agreed to withdraw their suit claims and consented to release specified exhibits to respondents 9 and 10.

The petition also recorded that specified respondents disclaimed interest in the suit property and provided for dismissal of the appeal against respondents 5 to 7, with an indemnity undertaking concerning any future claim by them.

1. Whether the appeal could be disposed of in terms of the parties’ compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC.

2. Whether the appeal against respondents 5 to 7 should be dismissed as not pressed, as provided in the compromise petition.

The compromise application invoked Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the provisions identified by the parties for recording their settlement and seeking disposal of the appeal.

The Court cited no precedent and did not set out or discuss any further legal test.

The Court recorded that the parties had settled the matter amicably and that appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 10 had signed the compromise petition, as had their advocates.

It placed the petition on record and disposed of the appeal in accordance with its terms, without giving a separate substantive analysis of the underlying partition dispute or the compromise’s individual terms.

The agreed terms included the ₹1.6 crore full and final settlement, withdrawal of the appellants’ claims, and release of the specified exhibits to respondents 9 and 10.

The appeal against respondents 5 to 7 was dismissed as recorded in the order.