Karnataka High Court
Civil Procedure and EvidenceProperty and Real Estate Law

The parties’ compromise was incorporated into the decree disposing of the appeal.

L RAJU, vs SMT. RASHMI V

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 28, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
The parties’ compromise was incorporated into the decree disposing of the appeal.. L RAJU, vs SMT. RASHMI V. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The respondents had obtained a decree for specific performance in O.S. No. 1306/2018, dated 26 June 2023.

Source reference: p. 2

The appellant challenged that decree under Section 96 CPC.

Source reference: p. 2

During the appeal, the parties filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, stating that they had settled their dispute concerning the suit schedule property voluntarily.

Source reference: p. 3

Under the compromise, the appellant acknowledged receipt of ₹6,00,000 as full and final settlement, undertook to execute and register a sale deed and clear encumbrances and property-tax arrears, and agreed to deliver vacant possession by 1 January 2027.

Source reference: p. 3–6

The respondents’ deposit of ₹8,84,000 before the trial court was to be claimed by the appellant through due process.

Source reference: p. 3–6

The judgment records the compromise cheque as dated 10 November 2026, although the judgment itself is dated 28 September 2026.

Source reference: p. 1, 4
02

Issues

1. Whether the parties’ compromise petition should be accepted under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC

Source reference: p. 3–4

2. Whether the appeal should be disposed of in accordance with the terms of that compromise

Source reference: p. 3, 6–7
03

Law Applied

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC provides the procedural basis for recording a lawful compromise between parties and disposing of the proceeding in its terms.

Source reference: p. 2–4

The appeal was brought under Section 96 CPC, but the Court did not determine the merits of the trial court’s specific-performance decree; it disposed of the appeal on the parties’ compromise.

Source reference: p. 2–4, 7
04

Reasoning

The appellant and both respondents appeared personally with their advocates, affirmed that the settlement was voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence, and signed the compromise petition; counsel also signed it.

Source reference: p. 3

The petition set out the settlement terms, including payment, execution of the sale deed, clearance of encumbrances, delivery of possession, and recourse to execution proceedings in the event of default.

Source reference: p. 4–6

On that basis, the Court accepted the compromise and made it part of the decree, without addressing the underlying merits of the appeal.

Source reference: p. 7
05

Holding

The Court disposed of R.F.A. No. 1810 of 2023 in terms of the compromise petition and directed that a decree be drawn accordingly.

It further ordered that the compromise petition form part of the decree.

Source reference: p. 7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Civil Procedure, 19081

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

L RAJU,vsSMT. RASHMI V

Karnataka High Court · September 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment