JUDGMENT ARAVIND KUMAR, J.—This is a plaintiffs appeal questioning correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 963/1982 by XXIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore dated 31.07.2002 where under the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction has been dismissed. 2. Learned Advocates and their respective parties have filed a compromise petition under Order 23, Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure where under it is reported that dispute between the parties has been amicably settled as per the terms and conditions enumerated in compromise petition and as such, they pray that decree of trial Court be substituted to that of the terms and conditions agreed upon or in other words, they pray for suit being decreed in terms of compromise petition. 3. Parties to this compromise petition who were also parties before the trial Court as well this Court are present in person/through their authorised representatives, namely Appellants-1, 3, 4 and 5 are present in person. Appellant No. 2 is represented by her sister and power of attorney holder Smt. Rohini Fernandes, i.e., appellant No. 5. Original power of attorney executed by appellant No. 2 in favour of appellant No. 5 is annexed to the compromise petition. Legal heirs of deceased defendant/respondent who have been arrayed as respondents-1 and 3 are present. Respondents 4 and 5 are represented by third respondent namely their mother in whose favour Respondent 4 and Respondent 5 have executed power of attorney and original of it is also appended to the compromise petition. Respondent No. 2 has also executed power of attorney in favour of his mother, i.e., respondent-3 – Smt. Usha Padmanabhaiah. In view of the fact that respondent-2 being a practicing advocate, and in the best interest of the parties Respondent No. 2 was directed to appear before this Court. Insofar as other respondents are concerned, namely, respondents-1 and 3 to 5, power of attorney produced along with the compromise petition are hereby accepted. 4. In view of the fact that respondent-2 being a practicing advocate, and in the best interest of the parties Respondent No. 2 was directed to appear before this Court. Insofar as other respondents are concerned, namely, respondents-1 and 3 to 5, power of attorney produced along with the compromise petition are hereby accepted. 4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondents that during the pendency of present appeal, Deed of family partition came to be entered into amongst respondents where under suit schedule property has fallen to the share of third respondent Smt. Usha Padmanabhaiah and it is for this precise reason, General Power of Attorney came to be executed by other respondents who have already relinquished their right, title and interest relating to the suit schedule property in favour of third respondent – Smt. Usha Padmanabhaiah. Certified copy of Deed of family partition dated 23.01.2006 which is duly registered is appended to the compromise petition and perusal of the same would reflect that it is admitted by both parties in this appeal that suit schedule property is relatable to item No. 3 of the property as described in the deed of family partition dated 23.01.2006. 5. The terms of settlement as agreed to between the parties read as under: (1) The original appellant Sri S.D. Fernandes had filed a suit in O.S. No. 2410/1979 which was renumbered as 963/1982 on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore for the relief of declaration of title in respect of property bearing No. 57/7, Pipeline Main Road, Bangalore 560 003 measuring East-West 20 feet and North-South 20 feet, being the suit schedule property. (2) The said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 31.07.2002. The appellants filed the present appeal. During the pendency of the above appeal, the parties have settled all their disputes amicably and have entered into this compromise. (3) The appellants have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,15,000/- to the respondents. The respondents having agreed to accept the said sum of Rs. 15,15,000/- and have agreed to give up their right, title and interest over the suit schedule property to the extent of 20 feet × 20 feet. (3) The appellants have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,15,000/- to the respondents. The respondents having agreed to accept the said sum of Rs. 15,15,000/- and have agreed to give up their right, title and interest over the suit schedule property to the extent of 20 feet × 20 feet. (4) Both the parties agree that under a registered partition deed dated 23.01.2006, document No. 4002/2005-06 amongst the family members of Late D.V. Padmanabhaiah, the property claimed by D.V. Padmanabhaiah has been allotted to his wife Smt. Usha Padmanabhaiah. (5) The appellants have today paid a sum of Rs. 10,15,000/- towards the part payment of the settlement amount to Smt. Usha Padmanabhaiah by pay order dated 30.10.2012 drawn on Mahila Cooperative Bank, Sheshadripuram Branch bearing No. 240996. the appellants have further agreed to pay the remaining balance of Rs. 5,00,000/- within a period of three months from today, i.e., on or before 15.02.2013 the appellants further submit that in case they fail to pay the remaining balance of Rs. 5,00,000/- within a period of three months as stated above, they shall pay interest on the said sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- at the rate of 15% p.a. from the fourth month. the appellants further agree that in any event they shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- within six months from today, i.e., on or before 30.01.2013 failing which both the parties agree that the respondent Smt. Usha Padmanabhaiah shall refund the advance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- [Rupees ten lakhs only] received this day without any interest. In such an event the decree passed by Hon’ble trial Court will become final and the appellants shall lose all the right, title interest and possession being claimed by them in the suit schedule property. (6) Further the appellants undertake to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property on Smt. Usha Padmanabhaiah paying/ depositing before Court the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as stated supra and the above appeal stands disposed off in terms of the compromise. Further the appellants shall deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property in favour of the Respondents on deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- failing which the respondents will be at liberty to initiate execution proceedings/ contempt proceedings without reference to HRC proceedings. (7) The respondents submit that on receipt of Rs. Further the appellants shall deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property in favour of the Respondents on deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- failing which the respondents will be at liberty to initiate execution proceedings/ contempt proceedings without reference to HRC proceedings. (7) The respondents submit that on receipt of Rs. 15,15,000/- as stated above, the respondents and everybody claiming under them give up all their right, title and interest in respect of the suit schedule property and on completion of payment of Rs. 15,15,000/- the appellants shall be the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and they shall enjoy the same without any hindrance from any of the respondents. (8) The respondents shall not have any right over the suit schedule property and the appellants are at liberty to get the katha made out in their name and enjoy the suit schedule property as the absolute owner thereof. The appellants hereby clarify that they do not have any right, title and interest or possession regarding the remaining extent of land (excluding suit schedule portion) conveyed in favor of D.V. Padmanabhaiah by his vendors. (9) The certified copy of the registered partition deed among the family members of the respondents is filed along with this compromise petition which clearly goes to show that the property claimed by D.V. Padmanabhaiah has fallen to the share of Smt. Usha Padmanabhaiah and, therefore, she is competent to enter to this compromise petition with the appellants. (10) This Hon’ble Court may permit the appellants to obtain the return of original lease deed, i.e., Ex.D8 produced by respondents and the respondents do not have any objection in this regard. 6. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 who are present before the Court acknowledge the receipt of Pay Order for Rs. 10,15,000/- drawn on Mahila Co-operative Bank dated 30.10.2012 drawn in favour of Smt. Usha Padmanabhaiah – third respondent which has been jointly paid by appellants herein. It is also agreed by the appellants that remaining balance of Rs. 5 lakh as agreed to under compromise petition would be paid in favour of respondent 3 by them within a period of three months from today, i.e., on or before 15.02.2013. It is also agreed by the appellants that remaining balance of Rs. 5 lakh as agreed to under compromise petition would be paid in favour of respondent 3 by them within a period of three months from today, i.e., on or before 15.02.2013. It is also agreed that in the event of delay in making such payment, respondents would be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% p.a. as agreed to under clause (5) of the terms and conditions enumerated herein above. 7. Parties present before Court admit execution of compromise petition. They also state that out of their own free will, volition and consent without any threat, force or coercion they have entered into this compromise petition. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 submit that contents of compromise petition which is in English language has been read over, explained to them by appellants-3 to 5 in Kannada language and only after having understood the contents thereof, they have affixed their signatures to compromise petition. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants has also affixed his signature to the compromise petition for having identified the appellants who are present before Court. 8. Respondents 1 and 3 are present before Court and respondents 2, 4 and 5 are duly represented by their mother and power of attorney holder – respondent-3. Respondents-1 and 3 admit contents of compromise petition and state that after having understood the contents of compromise petition, they have affixed their signatures out of their free will, volition and consent without any threat, force or coercion. Respondents-1 and 2 are learned Advocates of Bangalore Bar. Respondent-1 is present before Court. 9. Compromise petition presented by appellants and respondents-1 and 3 to 5 on 15.11.2012 came to be accepted by this Court and for appearance of Respondent 2 it was listed today, since second respondent Sri. D.P. Shivaprasad, is a practicing Advocate of Bangalore Bar and was not present before Court. Considering the fact that he is also a respondent in this case and a practicing member of Bangalore Bar this Court directed him to be present before the Court. Accordingly he is present before Court today. He reiterates the contents of compromise petition and submits that out of his own free will and volition, without undue influence or coercion said compromise had been entered into between the parties. Accordingly he is present before Court today. He reiterates the contents of compromise petition and submits that out of his own free will and volition, without undue influence or coercion said compromise had been entered into between the parties. He also states that he has executed a power of attorney in favour of his mother, respondent No. 3 confirms its execution whereunder the third respondent has entered into compromise petition on behalf of respondent No. 2 also. He would also reiterate that he has perused the compromise petition and has understood the contents thereof and admits the execution of said compromise petition. 10. Learned counsel Sri. N.S. Satish Chandra in token of having identified second respondent has also affixed his signature to the compromise petition. Parties to compromise petition except respondent No. 2 were present before Court on 15.11.2012 and for appearance of respondent No. 2 it was listed today and as noted hereinabove he is also present today and has admitted execution of Power of Attorney in favour of his mother and the contents of compromise petition. 11. In view of aforesaid circumstances compromise petition filed by parties is hereby accepted and in view of the parties having entered into compromise as per the terms enumerated in the compromise petition the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.963/82 dated 31.07.2002 is hereby set aside and decree is ordered to be drawn in terms of compromise petition. 12. Parties to bear their respective costs. Registry to draw the decree accordingly.