THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU A.S No.2482 OF 1992 & C.R.P.No.2823 of 1992 DATED: 15-03-2010 Between: Ravipati Venkata Subbarao. …. Plaintiff-appellant. And Ravipati Satya Harischandra Prasad & another. ….. Defendants-respondents. COMMON ORDER Civil Revision Petition No.2823 of 1992 is directed against the order, dated 01-04-1992 in I.A.No.211 of 1992 in O.S.No.8 of 1992 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari. Appeal Suit No.2482 of 1992 is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 01- 04-1992 in O.S.No.8 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari. 2. As these two matters are between the same parties and they are interrelated, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.8 of 1992, which is filed for partition of the suit schedule properties. It appears, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. In fact, first hearing of the suit was taken up on 16-06-1992 and in the meanwhile, the plaintiff and the defendants have compromised the matter and filed the petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC on 14-02-1992. However, on the ground that the terms of the compromise were unfair, the matter was posted to 16-03-1992. On that day, the parties appeared in the Court and admitted the terms of the compromise. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have also stated that the parties are majors and they are entitled to enter into compromise as they like and the Court is bound to record the compromise and decree the suit as per the compromise, but the Court below has dismissed the suit on the ground that the compromise entered into between the parties to the suit is declared as illegal, unlawful and against the public policy. 5. The trial Court held that the parties want to relinquish their right as to share in the schedule property, in favour of the other party, and relinquishment of right in immovable property cannot be done by entering into compromise, it can only be done by settlement between the parties orally or if they want by way of a document, it must be a registered instrument. The parties shall not be compromised in the guise of a partition suit for relinquishment of property. It further held that it is a collusive suit and the parties are not entitled for recording compromise in the suit and accordingly dismissed the suit. 6. I am of the opinion that even after such a compromise is entered into, it may be a document but it requires to be registered. Therefore, under those circumstances, there was no hurdle in the way of the Court to record compromise and dispose of the suit. I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not considered the ultimate effect of the compromise. Therefore it has erred in dismissing the suit. 7. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is allowed and the suit is disposed of as per the terms entered into between the parties. Civil Revision Petition is also allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.211 of 1992 dated 01-04-1992, is set aside and I.A.No.211 of 1992 is accordingly allowed. There shall be a decree accordingly. No order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU,J 15th March, 2010 Tsy