THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.NOs.2393 & 2595 OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed The appellant and the subject matter in both the appeals is one and the same, hence, both the appeals are heard together the disposed of by this common Judgment. Aggrieved by the common Judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Visakhapatnam in suits O.S.No.144 of 1999 and O.S.No.82 of 2000, dated 16-07-2003, the present appeals are being filed. The appellant Sri K. Surya Parakasa Rao instituted O.S.No.82 of 2000 (old suit No.11/1996) on the file of the District Court, Visakhapatnam, seeking for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the Item No.2 of the suit schedule house property and consequential relief of recovery of possession, etcetera. Respondents 1 to 5 in A.S.No.2595 of 2004, instituted O.S.No.144 of 1999 on the file of the District Court, Visakhapatnam, seeking partition of Item-1 of the suit schedule property into two (2) equal shares and to allot one such share to the 6th respondent / 2nd defendant and divide the remaining half share into four (4) equal shares and allot three (3) such shares to respondents 1 to 5 / plaintiffs and one such share to the appellant / 1st defendant and, also partition of Item-2 of the plaint schedule house property into four (4) equal shares and to allot three (3) such shares to respondents 1 to 5 / plaintiffs and one such share to the appellant / 1st defendant and for costs, etcetera. Both the suits were clubbed together and disposed of by a Common Judgment dated 16-07-2003, whereby and whereunder the suit O.S.No.144 of 1999 was decreed as prayed for and the suit O.S.No.82 of 2000 was dismissed. Entertaining A.S.No.2595 of 2003, this Court stayed passing of final decree in O.S.No.144 of 1999 on the file of the District Court, Visakhapatnam. Now, it is brought to our notice that during the pendency of these appeals, the appellant Sri K. Surya Prakasa Rao died. The Legal Representatives of the deceased appellant filed miscellaneous petitions in both the appeals, to condone the delay of 154 days in filing the petition to bring the legal representatives on record, to set aside the abetment of the appeals and to bring petitioners 2 to 4 therein as legal representatives of the appellant. Having satisfied with the reasons stated in the respective accompanying affidavits, all the miscellaneous petitions are ordered as prayed for. At this stage, it seems, all the parties on both sides have settled the disputes amicably amongst themselves by entering into a compromise and reduced the terms of the said settlement into a memo, under Order-23 Rule-3 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, duly signed by all of them, and filed the same before this Court in A.S.M.P.No.2326 of 2009, which is to the following effect: a) All the parties have agreed that Item-1 of the schedule property be divided into two (2) equal shares and allot one such share to the 6th respondent / 2nd defendant absolutely and the remaining half of the said property shall be divided into four (4) equal shares and agreed for allotment of three (3) such shares to respondents 1 to 5 and one such share to the appellants 2 to 4. b) All the parties agreed that Item-2 of schedule house property shall be divided into five (5) equal shares and two (2) such shares shall be allotted to appellants and the remaining three (3) such shares shall be allotted to 1st respondent, 3rd respondent and respondents 4 and 5 put together equally. c) The 6th respondent agreed that he has no claim or whatsoever in respect of Item-2 of suit schedule house property. d) All the parties agreed that, since Item-2 of schedule house property is indivisible property, it shall be jointly sold or given for development by entering into a development and agreement with any prospective purchaser / builder and share the proceeds / built up area as per the aforesaid agreed share mentioned in clause (b) respectively. e) All the parties agreed that they shall not make any claims or whatsoever in respect of shares allotted to each other and they will abide by the terms of compromise. f) Both the suits O.S.No.144 of 1999 and O.S.No.82 of 2000 shall be decreed in terms of this compromise. g) All the parties agreed to bear their own costs. All the parties appeared before this Court and consented to the said compromise memo, and prayed to order the same, in the presence of their respective counsel. In view of the said settlement of the issues by the parties, by way of a compromise, taking the said compromise memo onto record, A.S.M.P.No.2326 of 2009, is ordered as prayed for. Registry is directed to prepare a decree in terms of the compromise memo. Consequently, there remains nothing to be adjudicated in these two Appeals, and accordingly, they are disposed of in terms of the compromise memo . No costs. --------------------------- Ghulam Mohammed, J --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 29th December 2009