JUDGMENT : Defendants in O.S.No.30/2003 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, have preferred this regular second appeal challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Trial Court and it was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 2. Respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit in O.S. No. 30/2003 against the appellants (defendants) before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Udupi seeking following reliefs: (a) To declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. (b) To direct the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. (c) To direct the defendants to pay cost of lawyers’ regd., notice and (d) To grant full cost of the suit and to grant such other and further reliefs as the circumstances of the case may require. 3. The Trial Court decreed the suit as under: “Suit is decreed. It is declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property. Defendants are directed to hand over vacant possession of plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within a period of 3 months from the date of decree. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.” 4. Even the regular appeal preferred by the defendants in R.A.No.74/2012 before the Principal District Judge, Udupi District, Udupi was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and appellants (defendants) were granted two months time to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent (plaintiff). 5. In this second appeal, the parties after negotiating the matter, have got the dispute relating to the suit property settled amicably by reducing the terms and conditions of the settlement into writing by way of filing a joint memo. 6. The joint memo signed by the parties and learned counsel appearing for them is taken on record. Terms of the settlement were read over to the parties who were present in the Court in the language known to them and they have admitted the contents and execution of joint memo. They have also stated before the Court that they have voluntarily entered into this settlement and it is free from fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and coercion. Terms of the settlement were read over to the parties who were present in the Court in the language known to them and they have admitted the contents and execution of joint memo. They have also stated before the Court that they have voluntarily entered into this settlement and it is free from fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and coercion. The parties having present before the Court and having the settled the matter, have signed the order sheet of the appeal memo and their signatures were identified by the learned counsels appearing for them. 7. Affidavit filed by the appellants undertaking to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property to the respondent on or before 31.12.2017 is placed on record. 8. Hence, the following ORDER (i) The above appeal stands disposed of in terms of the joint memo. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 25.09.2012 passed in O.S.No.30/2003 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Udupi and the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2014 passed in R.A.No.74/2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Udupi are hereby confirmed subject to following modification: (a) As per the terms of the settlement, the appellants shall vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent on or before 31.12.2017. (b) In the event of appellants (defendants) vacating and handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent on or before 31.12.2017, the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to appellant No.1 (mother) by way of demand draft. (c) Either of the parties can request the Executing Court to adjourn the execution petition to 08.01.2018. (d) If the appellants (defendants) vacate and deliver the vacant possession of schedule property on or before 31.12.2017, the respondent (plaintiff) can get the execution petition closed by filing an appropriate memo. (e) In the event of appellants failing to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed with the execution petition and recover the possession of schedule property from the appellants and in that event. (f) The respondent will not be liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to appellant No.1. (g) Office to draw decree in terms of the joint memo. 9. (f) The respondent will not be liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to appellant No.1. (g) Office to draw decree in terms of the joint memo. 9. Since, appellants have no objection for the Trial Court to return all the original documents produced in the suit in favour of the respondent, the Trial Court is hereby directed to return the original documents produced by the parties in O.S.No.30/2003 in favour of the respondent (plaintiff). In view of the disposal of the appeal as settled in terms of the joint memo, the Registry is hereby directed to refund permissible Court fee in favour of the appellants by issuing cheque in the name of appellant No.2. The joint memo filed by the parties and affidavit filed by the appellants are ordered to be treated as part and parcel of this order.