Dr. Munazza vs. Late Dr.K.A.Samad

Facts

These two appeals, RFA No. 1512 of 2015 and RFA No. 1530 of 2015, arose from the dismissal of two suits (O.S. No. 38/1996 and O.S. No. 91/2009) by the Ist Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru. The suits, which were clubbed together, concerned partition and separate possession of properties. RFA No. 1512/2015 was filed by the legal heirs of Dr. K.A. Samad, and RFA No. 1530/2015 was filed by the legal heirs of Dr. A.S. Mohammed Iqbal Hussain. The core dispute revolved around the right or share of the deceased son of the appellants in the suit schedule properties at the time of his death. The appeals challenged the common judgment and decree dated 13.07.2015 passed by the trial court.

Held

The Court held that the compromise petitions filed by the parties were valid and had been concluded knowledgeably and voluntarily. The Court interacted with the signatories online, recorded their voices, and confirmed their consent. The respective advocates identified all signatories. A perusal of the compromise petitions generated confidence in the Court that the settlement was amicable, with no violation of any law. There was no legal or other bar to recording the compromise. The Court found that the settlement would restore amity amongst the parties by giving a decent burial to their differences and disputes. Therefore, the Court decreed both appeals in terms of the compromise and set aside the impugned judgments and decrees. The Court noted that the parties agreed to transfer shares, and the first party (Mrs. Munazza Iqbal and her children) would bear the Income Tax liability and GST, if any, in respect of the shares being transferred to their name. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the compromise reached between the parties is valid and can be recorded by the Court, thereby disposing of the appeals? Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The appellants and respondents submitted that they have amicably settled the lis involved in the appeals. They presented compromise petitions under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908, signed by all parties, indicating their voluntary consent to the settlement. They prayed for the appeals to be disposed of in terms of this compromise. Revenue/State's Argument: No argument was recorded for the revenue or state as they were not parties to the compromise. The court's focus was on the agreement between the private parties.