Konda Veeraju vs. Bondu Jageswari

Held

The Court allowed I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2025. Consequently, the Second Appeal No. 1094 of 2003 was disposed of by setting aside the decree and judgment dated 18.07.2003 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, in A.S. No. 84 of 1998. Furthermore, the suit in O.S. No. 339 of 1992, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, was dismissed in terms of the compromise. The Court found satisfaction with the terms of the compromise and the amicable settlement reached by both parties. The ratio decidendi is that when parties to an appeal amicably settle their disputes through a compromise, the appellate court should record the compromise and dispose of the appeal accordingly, setting aside the lower appellate court's judgment and decree, and dismissing the original suit in terms of the compromise. No order as to costs was made. The registry was directed to annex a copy of the Memorandum of Compromise to the judgment.

Facts

The appellant, Konda Veeraju, filed a suit (O.S. No. 339 of 1992) seeking a declaration that a lane was common and not joint, and for mandatory injunctions regarding a drain and superstructure, as well as possession of an encroached vacant site. The respondent, Bondu Jageswari, filed a counter-suit (O.S. No. 219 of 1992) for permanent injunction against interference with her possession. The trial court partly decreed the appellant's suit and dismissed the respondent's suit. Both parties appealed. The first appellate court dismissed both appeals. The appellant then filed a Second Appeal (S.A. No. 1094 of 2003) against the dismissal of his suit. During the hearing of the Second Appeal, both parties appeared and admitted to a compromise. Applications were filed to record the compromise and to permit a change of counsel for the respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Memorandum of Compromise filed by the parties in S.A. No. 1094 of 2003 is to be recorded and given effect to, considering the amicable settlement reached between the appellant and the respondent. 2. Whether the Second Appeal No. 1094 of 2003, arising from the dismissal of O.S. No. 339 of 1992, should be disposed of in terms of the admitted compromise. Petitioner's arguments (Appellant in S.A. No. 1094 of 2003, Plaintiff in O.S. No. 339 of 1992): The petitioner sought to record the compromise and have the appeal disposed of accordingly, as both parties have amicably settled their disputes. The petitioner relied on the Memorandum of Compromise filed in I.A. No. 1 of 2025. Respondent's arguments (Respondent in S.A. No. 1094 of 2003, Defendant in O.S. No. 339 of 1992): The respondent, through her counsel, also agreed to the terms of the compromise and sought to have the appeal disposed of based on this settlement. The respondent also sought to change her counsel through I.A. No. 2 of 2025.