http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: B.R. VEERABASAVARADHYA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DEVOTEES OF LINGADGUDI MUTT & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/05/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard counsel on both sides.      It is  not in dispute that in OS No.22/62 filed against five persons,  there was a compromise by the appellant.  The appellant was  impleaded as  first defendant.   Pursuant  to compromise memo  dated June  7, 1972  filed under  Order 23, Rule 3 CPC, the Court passed a decree in terms thereof.  The clauses contained  in the memo were that the appellant shall continue to be in occupation as Manager of the trust for its administration and  the  deities  installed  in  the  plaint schedule property.   The two shops built by the appellant in the shrine  were declared  to be  continued  to  be  in  his possession subject to his performing the worship in the same way as  was done  by his  ancestors.  The money deposited by him in  OS No. 463/64 on the file of Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore  City was  agreed to be refunded to him and half the  institution  fee  was  also  to  be  refunded.  In furtherance thereof,  the appeal  was remanded  to the trial Court for  consideration of  the matter  afresh  as  against defendants 2 to 4.  In furtherance thereof, the suit came to be dismissed.    Again,  a  compromise  memo  was  filed  by defendants 2  to 4  in the  High Court and the High Court in the impugned  order dated  January  25,  1993  made  in  RFA No.176/80 recorded the compromise as against defendants 2 to 4 and  disposed of  the matter  in terms thereof.  Thus this appeal by special leave.      Firstly, there  is a  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the appellant  for   the  reason   that  respondent  1(iii)  and respondent 2  died and  though steps  were  directed  to  be taken, no  steps have  been taken as against them.  It would appear that  counsel for  the petitioner  made an  affidavit proposing to  delete respondent 1(iii) and respondent 2 from the array of the parties.  Even if we accept that stand, the problem will  be whether  the decree  as compromised against defendants 2  to  4  could  be  set  aside  as  against  the appellant.   it is  seen that  in  the  first  instance  the appellant had  specifically compromised  the matter in terms of the  compromise memo which was recorded against him.  The litigation thereby  came to  an end.   When  the matter  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

remitted to  the trial  Court,  it  was  confined  vis-a-vis defendants 2  to 4.  After the  disposal of  the suit by the trial Court,  pending appeal,  they came  to compromise with the respondent  and in  terms thereof, the compromise decree came to  be recorded  in which the appellant cannot have any grievance in  the matter  as against  him.   The  compromise decree referred  to in  the first instance would operate and he is  bound thereby.   The appeal, therefore, does not have any merit.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.