Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned companynsel for the defendants appellants pointed out that by virtue of clause S in sub section 2 of Section 97 of the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1976, the amendment effected in Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code has numberapplication to pending suits and proceedings and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that 1985 settlement, being oral, cannot be looked into by the Court.
The defendants appellants herein objected inter alia on the ground that under a settlement arrived at in 1985, the parties have finally settled the issue of partition and hence there is numberquestion of passing a final decree number.
On revision filed by the plaintiff , a learned Single Judge of the High Court held that Order 23 Rule 3, as amended in 1976, does number recognize an oral settlement and hence the 1985 settlement companyld number have been accepted by the Court.
The learned District Judge held, after an enquiry that the 1985 settlement put forward by the defendants is true and, therefore, the application for passing a final decree is liable to fail.
4 of 1975 on the file of the learned District Judge, Adilabad was instituted by R.Satyabai widow of R.Gopal Rao against the three brothers of her husband.
Plaintiff having died, her daughter and sole legal representative applied, in 1991, for passing a final decree.
They also submitted that when certain differences arose again between plaintiff and defendants, they were settled under a memo of family arrangement dated July 5, 1992, which was said to be signed by all the parties.
On July 13, 1978, a decree was made by the Court on the basis of a companypromise between the parties.
Under this companypromise, the plaintiff was given certain properties exclusively while in some others she was given a joint interest.
Original Suit No.
Leave granted.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
