JUDGMENT In all these three appeals, the respondents are the same whereas the appellants are different. As a common compromise petition is filed in all these three cases, they are taken up together for consideration by this Court. 2. O.S. No. 6664 of 2004 is filed by Gold Coins Hotels and Resorts Limited against Sri Mohammed Nissar, Sri L. Chaturbhuj and Smt. C. Maya for the relief of ejectment in respect of the property, which is the subject-matter of the suit. O.S. Nos. 7199 and 7200 of 2003 are filed by the very same Gold Coins Hotels and Resorts Limited against Sri Mohammed Nissar, Sri L. Chaturbhuj, Smt. Abida Mahid, and Smt. C. Maya for ejectment in respect of the properties, which are the subject-matters of the suits. 3. The Trial Court after contest, has decreed all the suits by its judgment and decree dated 28-7-2006. Aggrieved by the same, defendant 1 in O.S. No. 6664 of 2004 and defendants 1 and 3 in O.S. Nos. 7199 and 7200 of 2003 respectively have preferred these three appeals. 4. R.F.A. No. 2110 of 2006 is against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 6664 of 2004 and RFA Nos. 2027 and 2028 of 2006 are the two appeals against the common judgment and decree rendered in O.S. Nos. 7199 and 7200 of2003. 5. All the parties and their respective Counsel in these appeals are present before the Court. A common compromise petition under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is field which is duly signed by all the parties and their respective Counsel. The parties, who are present before the Court, admit the execution of the compromise petition. We have gone through the terms of the compromise petition. It is lawful. The compromise petition reads as under: "Compromise petition under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure The appellant and respondent state as follows.- 1. That all matters in controversy between the appellant and the respondents and its directors and between the Directors of the respondent and the appellant and members of his family have with the intervention of the well-wishers and friends have been amicably settled. The amicable settlement reached as a result of consensus between the parties is as follows.- 2. That the respondents are the absolute owners of Radhakrishna Complex, No. 1/1, 3rd Cross, KB. The amicable settlement reached as a result of consensus between the parties is as follows.- 2. That the respondents are the absolute owners of Radhakrishna Complex, No. 1/1, 3rd Cross, KB. Temple Road, 6th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010. In consideration of the respondent agreeing to transfer absolutely clear ownership free of all encumbrance by registering sale deeds at respondent cost and delivering vacant possession to the appellant of 2000 sq. ft. super built up area office in the floor of the 2nd floor of building known as Radha Krishna Complex at No. 1/1, 3rd Cross, KB. Temple Road, 6th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010 within a week from the date of recording of this compromise by High Court to the appellant by registering the office, time being the essence, the appellant hereby relinquishes his claim over all other portions of the buildings including three premises which are the subject-matter of these appeals. 3. The appellant who is in possession of the basement and first floor officers in the building known as Gold Tower and formerly Cha Che Towers, at No. 50, Residency Road, Bangalore-560 025, will redeliver possession of the same to the respondent-company, concurrently with the transfer contemplated in para 2 above. 4(a) The respondent further represents that they are the owner of apartments in Saleh Arcadia, Richmond Town, Bangalore and the respondent-company and the Directors hereby undertake to transfer absolutely clear ownership free of all encumbrance by registering sale deeds at appellant cost in respect of Flats No. 201 and 205 given on rent each measuring 1702 sq. ft. situated at Saleh Arcadia Apartments, Richmond Town, Bangalore fully furnished as per settlement and deliver possession by attornment of tenants and simultaneously the appellant will return all pronotes in totality signed by Mr. Chetan P. Tayal and Mr. Kusum Tayal and his family members and his companies including the cheques in possession of the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 and their associates/alliances in totality. (b) The terms, conditions and obligations contained in paras 2, 3 and 4 shall be performed by the parties (appellants and respondents) simultaneously within a week from the date of recording of this compromise by High Court. 5. (b) The terms, conditions and obligations contained in paras 2, 3 and 4 shall be performed by the parties (appellants and respondents) simultaneously within a week from the date of recording of this compromise by High Court. 5. In the event of either party failing to fulfill their obligations in terms of the agreement as contained in paras 2, 3 and 4 above, this compromise can be enforced against the defaulting party in respect of those obligations without need of further declaration of right by any Court of law, and it shall be executable decree. 6. The appellants have no objection to the respondents taking possession of the premises immediately on the III Floor which are the subject-matter of these appeals and sealed on the attachment of this Hon'ble Court and has delivered possession to the respondent of other areas. 7. The respondent and all its directors hereby expressly undertake that prosecution initiated by them against the appellant, his wife; and Mr. Chaturbhuj L. and Smt. Maya C., which is pending in C.C. No. 24897 of 2003 on the file of the XI ACMM, Mayo Hall and C.C. No. 2381 of 2004 on the file of the I ACMM, Bangalore will be settled unconditionally, withdrawing all allegations made against the appellant, his wife and others. The respondents-Chetan P. Tayal and Kusum Tayal and its directors will file application for compound such of the offences which are compoundable by filing appropriate application in the said cases as advised by the appellant by and in some of the offences alleged are not compoundable, the appellant and respondents will file joint petition to seek quashing of the proceedings in the High Court but however this High Court is requested to quash these cases pursuant to this compromise in the exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 8. The appellant undertake that he will withdraw all the cases immediately within a week filed against the respondent and their directors including cases filed in Courts detailed below: O.S. No. 15859 of 2006 pending in Mayo Hall Court, C.C. No. 30960 of 2009 cheque bounce case W.A. No. 226 of 2008 pending in Hon'ble High Court. 9. The appellant-Mr. The appellant undertake that he will withdraw all the cases immediately within a week filed against the respondent and their directors including cases filed in Courts detailed below: O.S. No. 15859 of 2006 pending in Mayo Hall Court, C.C. No. 30960 of 2009 cheque bounce case W.A. No. 226 of 2008 pending in Hon'ble High Court. 9. The appellant-Mr. Mohammed Nisar withdraws all the allegations made against the respondent and their company and request this Hon'ble Court to drop the contempt proceedings in CCC No. 1 of 2007 as the differences between the parties is amicable settled. The appellant today has no objection to the respondent and its directors seeking the indulgence of the Hon'ble High Court to drop proceedings initiated for contempt against them in CCC No. 1 of 2007 in view of parties settled the matters amicably or in the alternative both the parties to file joint application/petition to seek drop of the proceedings however this High Court is requested to quash the contempt proceedings pursuant to this compromise in the exercise of its power. 10. The appellant/respondents 2 and 3 and the respondent-company including their transferees, alliances and associates and any other person claiming through them have no further claims against each other and all the claims are settled in full and final satisfaction of all. 11. The respondent 2-Mr. Chaturbhuj L., and respondent 3-Smt. Maya C. have transferred their entire shareholdings at part in the company Cha Che HotelslMls. Gold Coin Hotels and Resorts Limited, now known as M/s. Renown Hotels and Resorts Private Limited to Mrs. Kusum Tayal and received the full consideration from Kusum Tayal and both the parties have no further claims against each other directly or indirectly. 12. In view, the subject-matter in the appeals is being compromised between the first respondent and the appellant, the interest of the second and third respondents would not survive at all and the second and third respondents have no further claims or interest against the first respondent and their Directors and the appellant or vice versa. Whereof, the appellant and respondents pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record this compromise and decree of the above appeals and pass such other order as may be necessary and expedient to give full effect to the compromise in the interest of justice and equity". 6. Whereof, the appellant and respondents pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record this compromise and decree of the above appeals and pass such other order as may be necessary and expedient to give full effect to the compromise in the interest of justice and equity". 6. Though the suits are for ejectment of the defendants from the premises on the ground that they are tenants, from the compromise petition, it is clear that the tenants appear to have some interest in the properties, which are the subject-matters of the suits. By this compromise, the appellants intend to transfer a portion of the properties to the defendants as absolute owners in view of which they are giving up their claim in respect of the remaining portions. In fact, all the properties are not the subject-matters of the suits, but to have an amicable settlement, they have been brought in as the subject-matter of the compromise petition. 7. In that view of the matter, these appeals are allowed in terms of the compromise petition. Accordingly, the Trial Court decree stands modified. 8. In these cases, an interim order came to be passed for sealing and attaching the third floor of the property in question. At para 6 of the compromise petition, the appellants have no objection for the respondents taking possession of the said premises immediately and have requested for vacating the interim order passed for sealing and attaching the third floor of the property. Accordingly, the said interim order stands vacated and the respondents are permitted to take possession of the said premises. 9. It is submitted that the Ashok Nagar Police have sealed the premises. The respondents shall hand over a copy of this order to the Ashok Nagar Police and on such intimation given to them, the Ashok Nagar Police shall open the lock and hand over possession of the premises to the respondents. 10. As the matter is being compromised, the appellants shall be entitled to refund of the half of the Court fee paid along with the memorandum of appeal. The cheque drawn in the name of the appellants shall be handed over to their Counsel as per their request.