Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Phaniharam Seshacharyulu vs Sunkara Rajasree on 14 December, 2021

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
                            AND
           HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                          I.A.No.2 of 2021
                               In/and
           A. S. No.603 of 2013 and A.S. No.616 of 2013


COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)


      Heard Sri Rajesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/plaintiff and Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, leanred cousenl

appearing for the respondents.

2. I.A. No.2 of 2021 came to be filed to dismiss A.S.No.603

of 2013 pursuant to the compromise arrived at between the

parties.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, both parties

are present before the Court and they are identified by their

respective counsel. When examined the appellant/plaintiff as

well as the respondents, stated that they have settled the

disputes and are not interested in prosecuting the case.

4. The Compromise Memo filed along with the present

application states that the appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.38 of

2007 before the Family Court-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District to declare the sale deeds

executed in favour of the 1st defendant, for recovery of possession

of the plaint schedule property, recovery of arrears of rent and

alternatively for payment of balance of sale consideration of

Rs.88,86,650/- with interest @ 18% per annum. Further,

O.S.No.57 of 2002 came to be filed claiming damages at the rate

of Rs.58,500/- per month from the date of agreement i.e., from

20.04.1998 till 20.04.2001 on the ground that the defendant

failed to pay balance sale consideration in spite of several

demands made by the appellant/plaintiff, and as such, he

sustained loss.

5. Written statement came to be filed by the defendants

therein disputing the claim. After a full pledged trial, the trial

Court partly decreed O.S.No.38 of 2007 with proportionate costs

for Rs.21,88,259/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date

of the suit till the date of decree and dismissed O.S.No.57 of

2002. Thus, the appellant/plaintiff in both suits filed the above

appeals vide A.S.No.603 of 2013 and A.S.No.616 of 2013.

6. Pending the above appeals, the respondents/defendants

is said to have been deposited an amount of Rs.74,35,594/- to

the credit of the suit and the same is lying with the Court deposit

i.e., Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram District,

Rajahmundry. It is further stated that at the intervention of

elders and well-wishers of both sides and with a view to avoid

vexatious litigation, the appellant/plaintiff as well as the

respondents in both the appeals have arrived at an amicable

settlement on the following terms:

"1. Both the parties without prejudice to their respective contentions put forth by way of pleadings in both the suits bearing O.S.No.38 of 2007 & O.S.No.57 of 2002 on the file of Family Court-cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry. The appellant herein abandons his title, possession and interest in the suit schedule property/claims in both the suits which are the subject matters of the present appeals by categorically admitting that

the title and the possession of the respondent no.1 herein and the successors in the interest over the schedule property as claimed by the respondent no.1 in the suit.

2. In a reciprocal gesture, the respondents agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.1,65,00,000/- (Rupees one crore sixty five lakhs only) (including the amount deposited to the credit of the suit i.e., Rs.74,35,594/- and the interest accrued thereon i.e., Rs.2.5 lakhs which comes to a total amount of Rs.76,85,594/-). The remaining amount of Rs.88,14,406/- is to be paid towards full and final settlement of the suit claims of the appellant/plaintiff in the present two appeals. The remaining amount of Rs.88,14,406/- is payable by Demand Draft bearing by name Sri Phaniharam Sesha Chary with Demand Draft no.856917 vide dated 21.09.2021 drawn on State Bank of India, Lalacheruvu Branch, Rajahmahendravaram, which is herewith enclosed.

3. The respondents hereby give their consent to the appellant to the effect that the appellant may withdraw the above amount of Rs.76,85,594/- lying with the CC deposit of the suit in O.S.No.38 of 2007 together with interest thereupon accrued over the said amount as on the date of the filing Cheque Petition and that the respondents have no objection for the same and that they have No Claim over the said amount under any circumstances.

4. It is further agreed by the respondents that in case if the above said amount mentioned of Rs.76,85,594/- is not there after the same is encashed from Fixed Deposit to the Civil Court Deposit upon filing the Cheque Petition by the appellant, then the balance amount that was fell short to that of the total agreed amount of Rs.1,65,00,000/- (one crore sixty five lakhs only) will be reimbursed by the respondents to the appellant.

5. It is further agreed by the respondents that they have no objection or claim over the interest that was accrued upon the amount deposited by them of Rs.74,35,594/- before

the suit account of the Court below, upto the date of filing the Cheque Petition by the appellant which may be over and above Rs.76,85,594/- calculated upto the date of filing this compromise petition, and that the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount together with interest accrued upto the date of filing the Cheque Petition.

6. The appellant/plaintiff, hereby declares, admits and acknowledges the title of the respondents and the respondents are entitled to deal with the suit schedule property in any manner, they desire as absolute owners and possessors.

7. The above-mentioned terms of the compromise are final, conclusive and the same are binding on both the parties hereto and their successors in interest and anybody else claiming through or under them. Further, they are enforceable at the instance of any of the parties hereto in the event of any breach by the other party or parties or their respective successors in interest.

8. In view of the above reciprocal gestures shown by the respondent No.1 towards the appellant, the appellant abandoned his claims made in both the suits which are presently pending for consideration before this Hon'ble High Court in both the A.S.No.603 of 2013 & A.S.No.616 of 2013.

9. The parties hereby accept that the common judgment of the trial Court needs to be modified in terms of this present compromise. Hence, both the parties jointly pray that the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to dispose of the present Appeal Suits keeping these present terms of the compromise on record and in the circumstances no costs may be ordered."

7. It is represented by Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents that the respondents no. 3

to 6 were set ex parte in O.S.No. 38 of 2007 and O.S.No.57 of

2002 in the lower Court and no relief is claimed by the

appellant/plaintiff against the respondents no. 3 to 6. According

to him, they are not necessary parties at all.

8. Sri Rajesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/plaintiff would also submit that the respondents no.3

to 6 were set ex parte and are not necessary parties in the present

appeals.

9. It is also to be noted here that though there are six

defendants in O.S.No.38 of 2007 but only defendants no.2 to 4

are shown as a parties; for the reasons stated in Para-73 of the

common judgment in O.S.No.38 of 2007 and O.S.No.57 of 2002,

which is as under:

"Under law the possession of the property to D.1 through tenants is nothing but constructive possessions of the property. Evidently, D.2 to D.6 have delivered possession of the property to D.1, but no relief is asked for possession of the property from D.1 by the plaintiff. The contention of the plaintiff that since D.2 to D.6 have transferred possession to D.1 pending suit, such transfer is illegal and is hit by lis pendens cannot be accepted for the aforesaid reasons. So, therefore in view of the above evidence on record the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of possession from D.2 to D.6. The issue is answered accordingly."

10. Hence, the presence of defendants no.3 to 6 before this

Court may not be necessary.

11. Xerox copies of Aadhar Cards of both the

appellant/plaintiff as well as the respondents are placed on

record in support of their proof of identity. Further, a Demand

Draft bearing No.856917, dated 21.9.2021 drawn on State Bank

of India, Lalacheruvu Branch, Rajamahendravaram, in favour of

the appellant/plaintiff is being handed over to the respondents

which will be the balance of the amount.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, the I.A.No.2 of 2021 is allowed and consequently,

A.S.No.603 of 2003 and A.S.No.616 of 2013 are dismissed