JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa J. 1. The Appellant and First Respondent in RFA No. 1910/2013 filed compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, which reads as under: "1. At the intervention of friends and well wishers, the Appellant and First Respondent have agreed to amicably resolve the disputes between them in respect of the above mentioned appeal in the following manner: (a) The Appellant and First Respondent are the co-owners in respect of the Suit Schedule Property having 50% right, title and interest in the same. The Suit Schedule Property is detailed hereunder in Schedule A for ready reference and is hereinafter referred to as "Schedule A Property" (b) It is agreed between the parties that the 50% share of the Appellant in the Schedule A property is divided and demarcated by metes and bounds and is more fully detailed hereunder in Schedule B and is hereinafter referred to as "Schedule B Property". (c) It is agreed between the parties that the 50% share, right, title and interest in Schedule A property of Respondent No. 1 is divided and demarcated by metes and bounds and is more fully detailed hereunder in Schedule C and is hereinafter referred to as "Schedule C Property." (d) The portion of Schedule A property alienated by the Appellant to the Respondent, KSRTC, vide Registered Sale deed dtd. 28/2/2009 (registered on 6/4/2009) as Document No. 18/2009-10 in Book-1, CD No. VRP D-9 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Virajpet has been accommodated within the share allotted to the Appellant and is more fully detailed hereunder in Schedule D and is hereinafter referred to as "Schedule D Property". (e) The demarcations agreed to by the parties in respect of the bifurcation of the Schedule A Property and demarcation agreed to between them in this Compromise in respect of Schedule B, C and D are detailed in the sketches for each of the Sy. Nos. 155/11B, 123 and 114 annexed to this Compromise Petition as ANNEXURE-A, B and C respectively, and the sketches shall be read as part and parcel of this Compromise. 2. Nos. 155/11B, 123 and 114 annexed to this Compromise Petition as ANNEXURE-A, B and C respectively, and the sketches shall be read as part and parcel of this Compromise. 2. It is agreed between the Parties herein that by virtue of this compromise, all issues arising between them in respect of the above mentioned matter have been amicably resolved and no party shall have any claim/entitlement hereinafter as against each other, in respect of the Schedule Properties allotted to each Party, as mentioned herein. All amounts paid by the Appellant to the Respondent No. 1 during pendency of the above Appeal as well as proceedings before the Trial Court have been adjusted towards claim of mesne profits and the Appellant shall not be entitled to claim reimbursement from Respondent No. 1 or anybody claiming through or under her. The Respondent No. 1 shall not be entitled to claim any amount towards past or future mesne profits or under any other claim /head in respect of her right, title and interest in the Suit Schedule A Property in any manner whatsoever. It is hereby agreed and confirmed that neither the Appellant nor the 1st Respondent have no claims as against each other. 3. It is hereby agreed by the Parties that the children of the parties herein, namely, K Aditi Povaiah and K. Vidushi Povaiah shall not claim any share in the property falling to the Appellant herein and the first respondent will undertake and shall execute registered Ratification Deed in favour of the Appellant. The said Ratification Deed shall be executed on the date of decree being registered, pursuant to this Compromise Petition. The Appellant herein has paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) as permanent alimony towards the First Respondent and the two daughters, namely Ms. Aditi Povaiah and Ms.Vidushi Povaiah as per the MC order passed in MC No. 2845 /2012, Order dtd. 07/07/2015. 4. The Appellant and First Respondent also own several shares in blue chip companies. The said shares are jointly held in both their names. In order to secure peace in future, the Appellant and the First Respondent together have decided to divide their share holdings not only amongst themselves but also amongst their two daughters in the following ratio. The Appellant 30%, the First Respondent 30%, daughters, Ms. Aditi Povaiah 20% and Ms. Vidushi Povaiah 20%. In order to secure peace in future, the Appellant and the First Respondent together have decided to divide their share holdings not only amongst themselves but also amongst their two daughters in the following ratio. The Appellant 30%, the First Respondent 30%, daughters, Ms. Aditi Povaiah 20% and Ms. Vidushi Povaiah 20%. The Appellant and First Respondent shall endeavour to co-operate with each other to ensure that the shares are dematted and transferred in the aforesaid ratio to each of their demat accounts at the earliest. 5. The Parties confirm that the Appellant/Respondent No. 1/Respondent KSRTC are in separate possession of their respective shares in Schedule B, C and D. 6. It is hereby agreed and confirmed that in view of the bifurcation of the property by metes and bounds, the Appellant hereby relinquishes all his right, title and interest in so far as the portion allotted to the 1st Respondent i.e., Schedule-C Property is concerned. So also the 1st Respondent also relinquishes all her right, title and interest in the Schedule-B Property allotted to the Appellant herein along with residential house measuring 2900 Sq.Feet along with servant quarters measuring 1173 Sq.feet and sheds measuring 1265 Sq.feet situated at the Schedule-B Property. The ownership of the residential house, servant quarters and sheds shall exclusively belong to the Appellant herein. 7. The Appellant and the First Respondent hereby agree and confirm that hence-forth they are the absolute owners in possession of Schedule-B and C Properties respectively, and that they are entitled to deal with the same as they deem fit at their absolute discretion. 8. By virtue of the above bifurcation of the property in the manner mentioned herein, the water / irrigation tank covering an extent of 17,000 square feet is situated towards the South-Eastern side of the Schedule C Property allotted to the First Respondent. It is specifically agreed between the Appellant and the First Respondent that this water irrigation tank and its embankments around the tank will be kept common and be used for irrigation / domestic of both the Schedule-B Property and the Schedule-C Property and the Appellant and the 1st Respondent are at liberty and is entitled to utilize the aforementioned tank without hindrance and disturbance by either party. 9. 9. It is hereby agreed and confirmed that in so far as maintenance of this irrigation tank is concerned, the cost of cleaning and maintenance of the embankment on the four sides of the tank and cleaning of the water tank, etc., shall be shared equally between the Appellant and the First Respondent, on mutually agreed estimation. 10. The Appellant and First Respondent hereby agree and confirm that the existing motor and the irrigation pipes shall be used and maintained solely by the Appellant in so far as irrigation of Schedule-B Property is concerned. The First Respondent hereby agrees that she will not utilize the said motor or pipes for irrigation of the Schedule-C Property. The First Respondent shall have her own motor and irrigation pipes for irrigation of Schedule-C Property. 11. It is hereby agreed that there is an underground sub-merged pipeline running from the irrigation tank motor room towards the Western side of the Schedule-C Property. The said sub-merged pipe also runs towards the Schedule-B Property. The Appellant shall utilize the said sub-merged pipeline for irrigating his property and domestic area etc., situated in Schedule-B Property. It is hereby agreed between the Parties that the First Respondent is also entitled to use the same existing sub-merged pipeline for her irrigation purpose also. The maintenance with regard to this sub-merged pipeline shall be shared equally between the Appellant and the First Respondent on mutually agreed cost estimation. 12. There is a water Well situated in the Schedule-C Property allotted to the First Respondent. The Appellant utilizes the said water Well for residential / domestic purposes. There is an existing pipeline and a motor through which water is drawn to the house situated in the Schedule-B Property. Since the water Well is now falling in the Schedule-C Property, the First Respondent undertakes to provide a similar water well with the same quality and quantity of water for Schedule-B Property. The First Respondent shall give 3 months notice before the water well is dug and also the water well shall be dug after prior consultation with a certified contractor to locate/ identify source of water for the new water well. Until the First Respondent provides this facility in the Schedule-B Property, the Appellant shall be at liberty and is entitled to utilize the aforementioned Well and draw water to his residential use without hindrance or disturbance by the First Respondent. 13. Until the First Respondent provides this facility in the Schedule-B Property, the Appellant shall be at liberty and is entitled to utilize the aforementioned Well and draw water to his residential use without hindrance or disturbance by the First Respondent. 13. Since the First Respondent at present does not reside in the Schedule-C Property and the water in the said water Well being solely utilized by the Appellant, all maintenance with regard to motor and pipeline connecting the water well will be that of the Appellant. The motor and the switch boards exclusively belongs to the Appellant. The Appellant undertakes to pay the electricity charges in respect of the same. 14. The First Respondent submits that in the event of First Respondent utilizing the water from the said water Well, the First Respondent shall be liable to equally bear the electricity charges in this regard, irrespective of the fact of usage by the First Respondent in this regard. The First Respondent is also entitled to have her own motor installed at the well and a separate meter in the event First Respondent chooses to do so. 15. The First Respondent hereby agrees that there are electrical poles situated in Schedule- C Property. The Appellant is drawing power supply from this electrical lines to the house, servant quarters situated in the Schedule-B property, along with motor rooms of the well motor room and the irrigation tank . Both the parties hereby agree that they will jointly ensure that the said electrical lines are properly maintained and allow access for maintenance. 16. In view of this bifurcation and allotment of the Schedule-B & C Properties, the Appellant undertake to access the irrigation tank situated in the Schedule-C Property by access earmarked in black colour in Annexure D. The access marked in Black colour at Annexure D runs along the extreme end of the Schedule-B Property. In order to access the irrigation tank, the Appellant is required to access from the motorable road earmarked in yellow colour in Annexure D situated in Schedule-C Property. The First Respondent hereby agrees to ensure that the said motorable road (road width to freely operate a tractor, jeep/ trailer car) situated in the Schedule-C Property, is widened from the intersection of the footpath of Schedule C and Schedule B property until the water well. The First Respondent hereby agrees to ensure that the said motorable road (road width to freely operate a tractor, jeep/ trailer car) situated in the Schedule-C Property, is widened from the intersection of the footpath of Schedule C and Schedule B property until the water well. The First Respondent shall, on or before 15/4/2021 provide alternative access at the junction of the Schedule-B and C Property, of a motorable road approximately 20 meters in length to access the irrigation tank and the width as approved by a qualified contractor to be appointed mutually, to enable the Appellant to access to irrigation tank without using the motorable road running in the Schedule-C Property. In assurance of providing a satisfactory access (as approved by a qualified contractor to be appointed mutually) to the Appellant, on or before April 15th 2021, failing which the Appellant shall be entitled to use the said motorable road situated in the Schedule-C Property for his irrigational / domestic purpose only. On providing of the aforesaid alternate road, the Appellant shall cease to use any other road except as marked in blue colour in the sketch at Annexure D. The said access sketch is more fully detailed in Annexure D. 17. Both Parties hereby agree and confirm that they will fence their respective areas so as to prevent stray cattle and wild elephant from entering into the Schedule-B and C Property. Both parties undertake to bear expenses in maintaining the fence in so far as their share of the property is concerned. 18. Towards the entrance of the Schedule-C Property, a residential house measuring about 775 square feet is situated. The said residential house, at present, is being used to provide accommodation to the Manager of the Schedule-B Property. The ownership of the said residential quarters exclusively belongs to the First Respondent. The First Respondent undertakes not to evict the estate Manager residing in the said residential house, for a period of three years. The maintenance of the said house, for three years shall be on the Appellant and the First Respondent is not entitled to bear any cost in this regard. After the said period of three years or earlier, the Appellant agrees that the 1st Respondent shall be entitled to utilise the said residential house, without any further reference to the Appellant. 19. After the said period of three years or earlier, the Appellant agrees that the 1st Respondent shall be entitled to utilise the said residential house, without any further reference to the Appellant. 19. The First Respondent agrees to allow access for a period of two years, to the Appellant herein and his wife Mrs. Supria Povaiah and for four Labourers namely Damayanthi, Mutha, Jayaram and Divya who are residing in the labour quarters situated just behind the Schedule-D Property. The First Respondent hereby agrees that the above named labourers shall be entitled to access the path situated in the Schedule-C Property to reach Schedule-B Property. The said access to the aforementioned labourers are being provided, since the First Respondent has known them. Except these four labourers, no other labourers will have access to the path leading to the Schedule-B Property. The First Respondent hereby agrees the ownership of this labour quarters exclusively belongs to the Appellant. In the event the First Respondent decides to put up a residence in her share, in the way of the said path, prior to the said period of two years, she shall intimate in writing to the Appellant, six months prior to putting up the said construction, so that alternate arrangments can be made by the Appellant. 20. In the event either party alienating their respective share in their property holdings in Schedule B and Schedule C by way of Gift, Sale, Release etc, the aforesaid terms and conditions shall remain the same including the irrigation tank along with embankment and the water well (if no alternate water well is provided) is concerned. 21. Each of the Parties herein undertake to withdraw all cases / complaints filed against each other in various courts pursuant to this Compromise. 22. Each of the parties to this compromise undertake to perform their obligations and adhere to the terms mentioned herein strictly without deviation. The Parties shall extend full co-operation with revenue authorities for mutation of revenue records and allotment of sub survey numbers for the areas bifurcated by metes and bounds and allotted to them respectively herein. 23. The parties pray that final decree be passed in the above terms. 24. The Parties shall extend full co-operation with revenue authorities for mutation of revenue records and allotment of sub survey numbers for the areas bifurcated by metes and bounds and allotted to them respectively herein. 23. The parties pray that final decree be passed in the above terms. 24. The parties shall be entitled to have this decree registered with the competent statutory authorities and also have the revenue records changed to their respective names as per this Compromise: WHEREFORE, the Parties pray that this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to dispose of the above Appeal as per the terms of this compromise, as above mentioned. SCHEDULE ‘A’ PROPERTY (Entire Property) S. No. Kula No. Tenure Sy. No. Area in Acres Boundaries 1. 52 Redeemed Paradeena Bane Coffee full area 155/11-B 10.53 (0.50 kharab) 10.03 E: Tata Coffee Estate W: Road N: Sy. No. 155/4 S: Sy. No. 155/1 2. 25 Redeemed Paradena 123 2.24 E: Road W: Nanda’s estate N: Sy. No. 122 S: Sy. No. 124/1 3. 62 Paradeena Bane Coffee Full area 114 1.71 E: Sy. No. 113 W: Sy. No. 117 N: Sy. No. 116/1 S: Chendrimada estate Total area 13.98 Acres The said properties are all situated at Mekoor Hoskeri Village, Ammathi Nad, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. SCHEDULE ‘B’ PROPERTY (Share of Appellant, K.U. Poovaiah @ Vivek Povaiah) S. No. Kula No. Tenure Sy. No. Area in Acres Boundaries 1. 52 Redeemed Paradeena Bane Coffee full area 155/11-B 5.23 E: Tata Coffee Estate W: Road N: Sy. No. 155/4 S: Portion of Sy. No. 155/11B-Namitha 3. 62 Paradeena Bane Coffee Full area 114 1.71 E: Sy. No. 113 W: Sy. No. 117 N: Sy. No. 116/1 S: Chendrimada estate Total area 6.94 The said properties are situated at Mekoor Hoskeri Village, Ammathi Nad, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. SCHEDULE ‘C’ PROPERTY (Share of Respondent No. 1, K. Namitha Povaiah @ Namitha Monappa) S. No. Kula No. Tenure Sy. No. Area in Acres Boundaries 1. 52 Redeemed Paradeena Bane Coffee full area 155/11-B 4.8 E: Tata Coffee Estate W: Sy. No. 115/11B-Vivek’s Portion and Road N: Sy. No. 115/11B -Vivek’s Portion S: Sy. No. 155/1 2. 25 Redeemed Paradena 123 2.24 E: Road W: Nanda’s estate N: Sy. No. 122 S: Sy. No. 124/1 Total area 7.04 The said properties are situated at Mekoor Hoskeri Village, Ammathi Nad, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. No. 115/11B-Vivek’s Portion and Road N: Sy. No. 115/11B -Vivek’s Portion S: Sy. No. 155/1 2. 25 Redeemed Paradena 123 2.24 E: Road W: Nanda’s estate N: Sy. No. 122 S: Sy. No. 124/1 Total area 7.04 The said properties are situated at Mekoor Hoskeri Village, Ammathi Nad, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. SCHEDULE ‘D’ PROPERTY (Property sold by the Appellant vide Registered Sale Deed dated 28.02.2009 registered on 06.04.2009 to KSRTC, Rep. by Respondents 4 and 5) S. No. Kula No. Tenure Sy. No. Area in Acres Boundaries 1. 52 Redeemed Paradeena Bane Coffee full area 155/11B 0.74 East: Remaining portion of Survey No. 155/11B West: Main Road North: Remaining portion of Survey No. 155/11B South: Survey No. 155/1 Total area 0.74 The said properties is situated at Mekoor Hoskeri Village, Ammathi Nad, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District." 2. This appeal is defendant's regular first appeal against the judgment and decree dtd. 29/7/2013 made in O.S. No. 82/2012 on the file of learned Senior Civil judge and JMFC, Virajpet. 3. The suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her one-half share in the plaint 'A' schedule property and also for a declaration that she is not bound by the sale deed dtd. 28/2/2009 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 5th defendant. i.e., Sy. No. 155/11B 10.53 cents, Sy. No. 123 measuring 2 Acres, 24 cents and Sy. No. 114 measuring 1 Acre 71 cents total 14 Acres 48 cents, more-fully described in the plaint as schedule 'A'. The trial Court by the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 29/7/2013 on I.A.No. XIV filed under Order XII, Rule 6 and under Order XV, Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC, 1908 has allowed the applications and consequently, suit came to be decreed declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in 'A' schedule property by metes and bounds and further held that the registered sale deed dtd. 28/2/2009 (registered on 6/4/2009) in favour of 5th defendant- KSRTC is not binding on the plaintiff's share. Though, Sri. K.P. Uthappa and Smt. K. Vani Uthappa, defendants No. 2 and 3, being the parents of the present appellant-defendant No. 1, did not challenge the said decree passed in favour of the first respondent during the pendency of the present appeal. 4. Though, Sri. K.P. Uthappa and Smt. K. Vani Uthappa, defendants No. 2 and 3, being the parents of the present appellant-defendant No. 1, did not challenge the said decree passed in favour of the first respondent during the pendency of the present appeal. 4. The RFA No. 12/2014 filed by the KSRTC Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court declaring the alienation made by the first defendant in favour of defendant No. 5 is not binding on the first defendant. 5. In the appeal filed by the first defendant, in RFA No. 1910/2013, the appellant as well as the first respondent/plaintiff filed the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. Wherein, it is specifically stated that the appellant and first respondent are the co-owners in respect of the suit schedule property having 50% right, title and interest in the same. The suit schedule property is detailed hereunder in schedule 'A' for ready reference and is hereinafter referred to as Schedule 'A' property. It is agreed between the parties that the 50% share of the appellant in the schedule 'A' property is divided and demarcated by metes and bounds and is morefully detailed hereunder in Schedule 'B' herein, along with the compromise petition remaining 50% right, title, interest in schedule 'A' property of Respondent No. 1 is divided and demarcated by metes and bounds and is more fully detailed hereunder in schedule 'C' and the portion of schedule 'A' property alienated by the appellant to the respondent, KSRTC vide registered sale deed dtd. 28/2/2009 (registered on 6/4/2009) has been accommodated within the share allotted to the appellant and is morefully detailed hereunder in schedule 'D' property in the present compromise petition. 6. The schedule 'B' and 'C' properties mentioned in the compromise petition are out of schedule 'A' property mentioned in the original suit. A portion of the 'A' schedule property alienated by the appellant to the KSRTC-5th defendant under the registered sale deed dtd. 28/2/2009 has been accommodated within the share of the parents. 7. It is further agreed between the parties, the demarcation agreed by the parties in respect of bifurcation of the 'A' schedule property and demarcation agreed between them in this petition in respect of schedule B, C, D are detailed in the sketches for each of the Sy. 28/2/2009 has been accommodated within the share of the parents. 7. It is further agreed between the parties, the demarcation agreed by the parties in respect of bifurcation of the 'A' schedule property and demarcation agreed between them in this petition in respect of schedule B, C, D are detailed in the sketches for each of the Sy. Nos.155/11B, 123 and 114 Annexed to the compromise petition as per Annexure - A, B and C respectively and sketches shall be read as a part and parcel of this compromise petition (all these A, B and C schedule properties are out of 'A' schedule property in the O.S.) 8. Both the parties are hereby confirmed that in view of the bifurcation of the property by metes and bounds, as per Annexure - B schedule allotted to the compromise petition by metes and bounds, the appellant-first defendant hereby relinquishes all his right, title and interest insofar as the portion allotted to the 1st respondent, schedule property more-fully described in the present compromise petition as annexed. It is also clarified that the first respondent/plaintiff hereby relinquished all her right, title, interest in the 'B' and 'D' schedule properties allotted to the appellant in the 'B' schedule a portion allotted 'D' schedule in favour of the KSRTC -5th defendant (originally 'B' schedule allotted to the first defendant-appellant) along with residential house measuring 2900 sqft. along with servant quarters measuring 1173 sq.ft. and sheds measuring 1265 sq ft. situated at 'B' schedule property. The ownership of the residential house, servant quarters and sheds shall exclusively belong to first defendant/appellant. 9. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties under this compromise petition, the sale deed dtd. 28/2/2009 executed by the appellant in favour of the 5th defendant is hereby confirmed and decree to that extent has to be modified. 10. In view of the disposal of the main appeal RFA No. 1910/2013, between the first defendant and plaintiff, wherein, by a compromise petition and in the compromise petition the right of the defendant No. 5, registered sale deed dtd. 28/2/2009 (registered on 6/4/2019) is protected allotting 'D' schedule property under this compromise petition. Smt. N.S. Latha, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that in view of the compromise entered into between the first defendant and plaintiff in RFA No. 1910/2013, the prayer sought in the writ petition would not survive for consideration. 28/2/2009 (registered on 6/4/2019) is protected allotting 'D' schedule property under this compromise petition. Smt. N.S. Latha, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that in view of the compromise entered into between the first defendant and plaintiff in RFA No. 1910/2013, the prayer sought in the writ petition would not survive for consideration. The said submission is placed on record. 11. Appellant, Sri. K.V. Poovaiah and respondent Smt. K. Namita Poovaiah, who were present, on enquiry by the Court, have agreed the terms and conditions of the compromise petition voluntarily without any coercion, or influence. The presence of the appellant and respondent duly identified by their respective counsel and compromise petition is also signed by the first respondent, appellant and their respective counsel. 12. In view of the above, appeal is disposed off in terms of compromise petition as follows: ORDER: (a) Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in respect of the property allotted to the KSRTC i.e., 'D' schedule property stands modified accordingly. Appeal is disposed off in terms of the compromise petition. (b) Office is directed to draw final decree in terms of the compromise petition. (c) RFA No. 12/14 filed by the KSRTC is also disposed off in terms of the compromise petition stated supra. (d) W.P. No. 20148/2014 is also disposed off as it does not survive for consideration. 13. In view of the disposal of the main matters finally, all the pending I.As. are also disposed off as they do not survive for consideration.