Judge vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 2361 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

     I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 IN APPEAL SUIT NO.201 OF 2013 and
                APPEAL SUIT NO.201 OF 2013


COMMON JUDGMENT:


      I.A. No.1 of 2022 is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to record the compromise

between the parties and to pass a decree in terms of the Joint

Memo, dated 27.01.2022.


2.    The Respondent in present Appeal instituted Original

Suit No.95 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Narasaraopet for specific performance of agreement of

sale dated 02.10.2006. The learned trial Judge decreed the

suit on 21.01.2013 with costs, directing the 2nd defendant to

execute register sale deed in favour of respondent/plaintiff

and deliver possession of the schedule property to the

respondent/plaintiff within two months from the date of

decree, failing which the respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to

get the sale-deed executed and obtain delivery of possession

through process of law. Against the said judgment and

decree, this Appeal Suit No.201 of 2013 came to be filed.

Now, the plaintiff and the second defendant have filed the

present application vide I.A. No.1 of 2022, seeking to record

the compromise between the parties and to pass a decree in

terms of the Joint Memo, dated 27.01.2022.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up, defendant No.2 i.e.,

Appellant No.2 and the respondent/plaintiff are present

before this Court. They are identified by their respective

counsel. They have produced their respective Aadhar Cards in

support of their identity. They stated that they have entered

into the compromise and settled the matter out of the Court

amicably and the terms of the Joint Memo can be recorded.

The terms and conditions of the Joint Memo,

dated 27.01.2022, annexed to the present application reads

as under:

"1. That the appellant shall sell the suit schedule property within 3 years from the date of compromise decree and shall pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the respondent/plaintiff herein from the sale proceeds. The amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) shall be paid to the respondent/plaintiff by the appellant before registration of sale deed. If the appellant fails to pay the same within three years, the respondent is entitled to execute to recover same as provided under CP.C. as a decree with first charge.

2. That the respondent gives up the decree passed by the trial Court at the request of the appellant subject to clause No.1 above and due to close relationship.

3. That the appellant herein, will enjoy the suit schedule property with absolute rights in her own right with all the ancillary rights that will be enjoyed by the owner of the property from today i.e., from the day of recording of this compromise decree subject to the above and shall not sell the plaint schedule property without paying the said sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only).

4. That both the parties hereby agree that the present appeal can be disposed by recording the terms of compromise agreed by both the parties."

4. In view of the compromise arrived at, between the

parties, this application i.e., I.A. No.01 of 2022 is allowed,

recording the compromise between the parties as per the

Joint Memo. A.S.No.201 of 2013 is disposed of, in terms of

the Joint Memo. There shall be a decree accordingly. Registry

shall annex a copy of the Joint Memo along with decree.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in

the Appeal Suit shall stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date: 05.05.2022 GR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 IN APPEAL SUIT NO.201 OF 2013 and APPEAL SUIT NO.201 OF 2013 Date:05.05.2022

GR

The sole defendant in O.S.No.632 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, is the appellant herein. The sole plaintiff is the respondent in this second appeal. The suit was filed against the appellant for permanent injunction restraining him, his men, or agents from interfering with the http://www.judis.nic.in respondent's peaceful enjoyment of A-schedule common passage or from alternating the physical character of the passage; for mandatory injunction against the appellant to remove the wall put up on the B-schedule property and also for mandatory injunction against the appellant to reinstall the lift, which was in operation, on the B-schedule property. By judgement dated 15.10.2014, the trial court had decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.90 of 2014 which was dismissed by the leaned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode. Further aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this court with this second appeal.

2. On notice, the respondent had entered appearance through a counsel. When the second appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that pending second appeal, the parties have settled the matter amicably between themselves and entered into a compromise. Today, a joint memo of compromise reduced into writing and signed by both the appellant and the respondent and the counsel for the respective parties has also been filed.

http://www.judis.nic.in

3. I have heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. The appellant and the respondent were present in court.

On inquiries, they had submitted that the matter was compromised as enumerated in the compromise memo. They further prayed this court that appeal may be dismissed recording the joint memo of compromise. The learned counsel on either side have also confirmed the same. The terms of compromise entered into between the parties in writing read as follows:-

"(i) As per the partition and subsequent ratification deed, the respondent is entitled to use common area, parking place in the ground floor, the lift on the western side and the toilets, bathrooms with passage on the eastern side of the first and second floor of the A and C Schedule of properties.

(ii) The appellant agrees to remove the materials and extension of the appellant's shops made in the portion where the lift was originally situate, and modify the said portion an extent of 58.97 sq.ft., each in the ground floor and first floor by removing the permanent roof top put up by the appellant in the ground, first and second floor within 8 weeks from the date of execution http://www.judis.nic.in of this Memo. The cost of removal shall be borne by the appellant.

(iii) Both parties shall endeavor to obtain quotation for re- installation of the goods lift and for this purpose the appellant leave passage from ground floor to Second Floor to remove the permanent front wall erected in the ground, first and second floor in order to facilitate running of lift for the purpose of loading, unloading and moving the materials and goods from the ground floor, first floor and second floor.

(iv) The lowest quotation among standard quality goods lift and other ancillaries shall be accepted by both parties and there upon both parties shall tender their equal respective shares to the contractor agreed between the parties for re- installation of the goods lift, and both parties shall extend all co-operation for

complete installation of the lift on or before 30.05.2019. The respondent undertake to instal goods lift on receipt of payment of half share from the appellant.

(v) Future maintenance of the goodslift and electricity charges for the goods lift and common areas shall be borne by both parties and both parties shall be jointly responsible for all acts and omissions thereof.

http://www.judis.nic.in

(vi) The appellant agrees to finish the work within the stipulated period as per clause (ii) of this Joint Memo of Compromise failing which the judgement and decree passed by the Courts below would be restored."

5. Recording the joint memo of compromise, this second appeal is dismissed. The joint memo of compromise shall form part and parcel of the decree. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.