ORDER : Ashok Bhan, J. Bayappa Patil had two sons, Maruti Bayappa Patil (the appellant herein) and Parasu Gangaji Hunaginale (Respondent 1 herein). The second son Parasu Gangaji Hunaginale was given in adoption to another family. 2. By the registered partition deed dated 22-11-1961, a partition took place between Maruti Bayappa Patil and his father Bayappa Patil. On the same date an agreement was executed between Bayappa Patil and his son Maruti Bayappa Patil wherein it was agreed that during the lifetime of the father, he would be in possession of all the properties falling to his share and after his death these properties would revert back to Maruti Bayappa Patil. 3. In the year 1971 consolidation took place under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). On the conclusion of the consolidation proceedings, certificate was issued in favour of Bayappa Patil under Section 24 of the Act showing him as the owner of the properties. 4. On 1-9-1975 Bayappa Patil executed a Will bequeathing his entire property in favour of his grandchildren i.e. sons of Parasu Gangaji Hunaginale, the respondents herein. 5. Bayappa Patil died on 17-6-1982. The appellants herein on 4-8-1982 filed a suit claiming that the suit properties were ancestral properties. 6. After giving the details about the partition deed and the agreement executed on 22-11-1961, it was stated that rights of deceased Bayappa Patil in respect of the properties allotted to him at the time of partition were restricted and that Bayappa Patil was not empowered to transfer or alienate the same to a third party. Final prayers made in the suit were: "(a) This Hon'ble Court passes an order declaring that the plaintiff herein is the only owner in respect of the suit properties and the defendants herein have no claim, title and interest in any manner whatsoever in respect of ownership or occupation of the suit property and due to that Will and so-called document of sale deed which Defendants 1 to 6 had obtained from the deceased father of the plaintiff are illegal and hence the same are liable to be cancelled and on the basis of the same they do not become eligible in any manner whatsoever for the claim on suit property and accordingly decree may be passed. (b) This Hon'ble Court should grant permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 6 and persons claiming through them to make illegal entry in the suit land and should not disturb peaceful occupation of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever and they should not threaten to do so and cause harm to the life of the plaintiff and they should not commit such acts against the plaintiff. (c) This Hon'ble Court should grant interim injunction pending hearing and final disposal of this suit restraining Defendants 1 to 6 and persons claiming through them to obstruct peaceful possession and occupation of the suit property by the plaintiff and causing harm to the life of the plaintiff. (d) The defendants should be directed to pay the cost of this suit to the plaintiff. (e) Permission should be granted to amend this plaint as and when observed necessary. (f) Any other consequential reliefs in the matter of this suit may be granted. (g) Any order may be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the sake of justice." 7. The trial court partly decreed the suit and passed the decree in the following terms: "1. It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of all the suit lands except suit lands Blocks Nos. 829, 1439, 367(B), 436 and 461 and suit houses bearing Nos. 277 and 279 situated at Village Batkanangale, Taluka Gadhinglaj. 2. It is hereby declared that the suit Will deed executed by deceased Bayappa in favour of Defendants 1 to 6 dated 1-9-1975 bearing Registration No. 826/75 of Sub-Registrar Office, Gadhinglaj is null and void to the extent of suit lands bearing Blocks Nos. 367(A), 511, 516, 524, 527, 529, 535 and 579 and suit houses bearing No. 279 of Village Batkanangale, Taluka Gadhinglaj and not binding upon the plaintiff. 3. The defendants are restrained permanently from interfering and causing obstructions into the possession of the plaintiff over all the suit lands and suit houses situated at Village Batkanangale, Taluka Gadhinglaj by themselves, their agents and servants, etc. unless they take due course of law. 4. Defendants 1 to 6 shall pay the costs of the plaintiff and bear their own costs." 8. Aggrieved by the part of the judgment which went against the appellant and that of the judgment which went against the respondents, they filed separate appeals. unless they take due course of law. 4. Defendants 1 to 6 shall pay the costs of the plaintiff and bear their own costs." 8. Aggrieved by the part of the judgment which went against the appellant and that of the judgment which went against the respondents, they filed separate appeals. While the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed by the first appellate court, the appeals filed by the respondents were accepted and the suit filed by the appellants was ordered to be dismissed. Aggrieved against the order passed by the first appellate court, the appellants filed a second appeal in the High Court which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties on the previous date of hearing, we suggested to the counsel for parties that the appellants and respondents being closely related, should explore the possibility of amicable settlement between them. Counsel for the parties, after taking instructions from their respective clients who are present in court today, state that the order passed by the High Court as well as the first appellate court be set aside and that of the trial court be restored. 10. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, we set aside the judgment and decree passed by the High Court and the first appellate court and restore that of the trial court. 11. Though the decree passed by the trial court was for declaration, this Court while granting leave on 17-1-2003 passed the following order: "Meantime, appellant to hand over possession of the properties to the respondent, which are not allotted to him in the partition deed and are bequeathed in favour of the grandchildren. The appellant to submit proper affidavit before this Court within four months from today." 12. In obedience to the above order, it is agreed by the respondents that the possession of the properties which were declared to be in the ownership of the respondents has been handed over to the respondents. 13. Since the possession of the properties which fell to the share of the respondents has already been delivered to them, all disputes in relation to the suit properties stand settled between the parties. The appellants are already in possession of the properties which have fallen to their share. The parties shall enjoy the properties which have fallen to their respective shares hereafter in absolute. 14. The appellants are already in possession of the properties which have fallen to their share. The parties shall enjoy the properties which have fallen to their respective shares hereafter in absolute. 14. These appeals stand disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.