Vs. The Devotees of Lingadgudi Mutt & Ors  INSC 682 (8 May 1996)
Faizan Uddin, G.B. Pattanaik
O R D
have heard counsel on both sides.
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.
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 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.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.