M.K. Naseeruddin vs. Ashok Kumar Vir

Held

The Court held that the parties had voluntarily entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated September 28, 2020. The terms of this compromise involved the development of the suit schedule property by Respondent No. 10, with specific entitlements for Appellant No. 2 (Ashok Builders India Private Ltd.) to 75,000 sq. feet of built-up area. The compromise also stipulated the execution of a Development Agreement-cum-Permanent Conveyance Deed (DAGPA) and ratification deeds. Crucially, the Court noted that the parties undertook not to create any third-party interests until the DAGPA was executed. The Court found no force, undue influence, malafide intention, or fraud in the settlement. The ratio decidendi is that when parties to an appeal voluntarily arrive at a compromise, the High Court should record the compromise and dispose of the appeal in terms thereof, provided the compromise is lawful and not against public policy. The operative direction was to dispose of the Appeal Suit in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.

Facts

This case originated as an Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging a Judgment and Decree dated July 22, 2010, from the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The appellants, Mr. K. Naseeruddin and Ashok Builders India Private Ltd., were plaintiffs in the original suit. The respondents were Ashok Kumar Vir, M/s. VIMCO FARMS & ORCHARDS PVT. LTD., and several other individuals and entities. The appeal was filed against the original decree. During the pendency of the appeal, various interlocutory applications were filed by the appellants, including applications to include a Computer Aided Design (CAD) map as part of the record, to produce a passport, and to appoint an advocate commissioner. The core of the dispute appears to relate to the development of land situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Key Issues

1. Whether the parties have reached a mutually agreeable settlement for the development of the suit schedule property, and if so, whether this settlement should be recorded and the appeal disposed of accordingly. Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The petitioners/appellants argued that they have voluntarily entered into a joint memorandum of compromise with the respondents, without any force, undue influence, malafide intention, or fraud. They sought to have this compromise recorded and the appeal disposed of in terms of the settlement. They relied on the terms outlined in the joint memorandum of compromise. Respondent's Argument: The respondents, through their counsel and representatives, were present and participated in the proceedings. They agreed to the terms of the joint memorandum of compromise, indicating their consent to the settlement. No separate arguments were recorded for the respondents, as they concurred with the settlement proposed by the appellants.