IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.15697 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) Between:
Sri.Venkataramana S/o late Siddanna, Aged about 31 years, R/at Ramasansra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Sulikere Post, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 060.
(By.Rajagopal M.R, Adv.) And:
… Petitioner 1. Sri.Panduranga Rao S/o Late Subba Rao @ Venkata Rao, Aged about 65 years, 2. Smt.Kasturi Bai W/o Panduranga Rao, Aged about 59 years, 3. Sri.Srinivas Rao S/o Panduranga Rao, Aged about 34 years, 4. Smt.Saraswathi Bai W/o Srinivas Rao, Aged about 31 years, 5. Master. Shravanth S/o Srinivasa Rao Aged about 9 years, 6. Kum. Devika Rao D/o Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 04 years, Respondents 5 and 6 are minors they are represent by their natural guardian father respondent No.3, Sri.Srinivasa Rao 7. Smt.Ambabhavani Bai D/o Panduranga Rao Aged about 31 years, All are residing at Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Sulikere Post, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 060.
All are represented by the GPA holder respondent No.7 (By Smt.Suman K.V, Adv.) ... Respondents *** This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in O.S.No.681/2018 as per Annexure-G and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The plaintiff filed the present writ petition against the order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru rejecting the settlement entered into between the parties on the ground that the objects of the settlement between the parties is not lawful and it is opposed to public policy.
2. The plaintiff filed suit for specific performance to enforce the registered agreement of sale dated 06.10.2017 in respect of the suit schedule property morefully described in the plaint schedule. Defendant not filed written statement. During the pendency of the suit, on 31.05.2018 both the parties filed compromise petition requesting the Court to accept the compromise petition and pass judgment and decree in terms of the compromise petition. The trial Court referred the matter to Bengaluru Mediation Centre. Both the parties have settled their dispute in the Bengaluru Mediation Centre in terms of the compromise petition entered into between them. The Bengaluru Mediation Centre submitted the report. In spite of the report, the Court below proceeded to pass the impugned order. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to lis.
4. Sri Rajagopal M.R., learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court erred in holding that the compromise entered into between the parties is not lawful and it is opposed to public policy, when there is a public policy that 7 guntas of landed property could not be registered, then, the settlement between the parties attracts the ingredients of Section 23 of the Contract Act. He further contended that in terms of the compromise petition, both the parties have agreed to settled the matter before the Mediation Centre. The learned trial Judge ought not to have recorded the adverse finding in the impugned order. He further contended that though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the two Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same have not been referred in the impugned order. Therefore, sought to allow the present writ petition.
5. Per contra Smt. K.V. Suman, learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the parties have voluntarily entered into compromise on 31.05.2018. The trial Court referred the matter to Bengaluru Mediation Centre and the matter was settled before the Mediation Centre. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit instead of giving adverse finding. Therefore, she also sought to allow the present writ petition.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance to enforce the registered agreement of sale dated 06.10.2017 entered into between the parties. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit, both the parties have filed compromise petition and requested the Court to pass judgment and decree in terms of the compromise petition. The learned trial Judge referred the matter to the Bengaluru Mediation Centre. The matter was settled between the parties in Bengaluru Mediation Centre. The trial Court instead of deciding whether the settlement arrived at between the parties is justified or not has proceeded to pass adverse findings on the ground that when there is a public policy that 7 guntas of landed property could not be registered, then, the settlement between the parties attracts the ingredients of Section 23 of the Contract Act and ultimately observed that in the background of the said provision it appears that the objects of the settlement between the parties is not lawful and it is opposed to public policy, in view of the reason it is just and necessary to hear the parties on the said point.
7. When both the parties to suit have voluntarily entered into compromise in terms of compromise petition, the learned Judge ought to have considered the report submitted by Bengaluru Mediation Centre and decided the issue instead of recording adverse findings.
In view of the above, the trial Court is directed to settle the point/issue after hearing both the parties and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court produced by learned counsel for petitioner including report submitted by the Bengaluru Mediation Centre and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PN/-