Smt. Kakarla Chilakamma vs. Sri Kakarla Rama Raidu
Held
The Court held that the terms of the compromise deed, dated 15.04.2023, were read over to all the parties. The parties admitted the contents of the compromise deed to be true and correct and accepted them. Consequently, the Court ordered I.A. No. 1 of 2023, thereby recording the compromise. In light of this, both appeals, A.S. No. 19 of 2002 and Tr.A.S. No. 938 of 2008, were disposed of in terms of the recorded compromise. The Court directed the Registry to prepare the decree accordingly within fifteen days and furnish copies to the parties. Any interim orders previously granted were vacated, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed. The ratio decidendi is that when parties to an appeal mutually agree to a compromise and present it to the Court, and the Court verifies their consent, the appeals shall be disposed of in accordance with that compromise.
Facts
This matter involves two appeals, A.S. No. 19 of 2002 and Tr.A.S. No. 938 of 2008, before the High Court. The appellant is Mullapudi Trilakshmi, and the respondents are Chitturi Sharada, Vankina Kavita, Jasti Madhuri, and Garapati Sujatha @ Atluri Sujatha. The judgment does not specify the tax period, the order or action under challenge, the authority that passed it, or the amount in dispute. The procedural history relevant to the decision is that the parties appeared before the Court, either in person or through their respective counsel. An interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1 of 2023) was filed concerning a compromise.
Key Issues
The Court was not required to decide any substantive legal issues. The primary question before the Court was whether to record a compromise entered into between the parties. The appellant and respondents, through their counsel, presented a compromise deed dated 15.04.2023 to the Court. The Court needed to ascertain if the parties understood and accepted the terms of this compromise. The judgment does not record any arguments presented by either side in the traditional adversarial sense, as the matter was resolved through a mutual agreement.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
I.A.NO.1 OF 2023 IN/AND APPEAL SUIT NO.19 OF 2002 & TR. APPEAL SUIT NO.938 of 2008
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Both the parties, by name Mullapudi Trilakshmi- appellant, Chitturi Sharada, Vankina Kavita, Jasti Madhuri and Garapati Sujatha @ Atluri Sujatha-respondents, present in person.
All the parties are identified by their respective counsel.
Terms of compromise read-over to the parties and they admitted the contents therein are true and correct and accepted the compromise. The Compromise Deed, dated 15.04.2023 is placed on record.
Hence, I.A.No.1 of 2023 is ordered. Consequently, compromise is recorded.
In view of the above, both the appeals i..e., A.S.No.19 of 2002 and Tr.A.S.No.938 of 2008, are disposed of in terms of compromise.
Registry is directed to prepare the decree accordingly within fifteen (15) days from the date of this judgment and copy
2 the same shall be furnished to the parties with usual expenses as per the procedure.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
Miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.