Again, a companypromise memo was filed by defendants 2 to 4 in the High Court and the fish Court in the impugned order dated January 25, 1993 made in RFA No.176/80 recorded the companypromise as against defendants 2 to 4 and disposed of the matter in terms thereof.
The money deposited by him in OS No.463/64 on the file of Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City was agreed to be refunded to him and half the institution fee was also to be refunded.
Pursuant to companypromise memo dated June 7, 1972 filed under Order 23, Rule 3 CPC, the Court passed a decree in terms thereof.
After the disposal of the suit by the trial Court, pending appeal, they came to companypromise with the respondent and in terms thereof, thee companypromise decree came to be recorded in which the appellant cannot have any grievance in the matter as against him.It would appear that companynsel for the petitioner made an affidavit proposing to delete respondent 1 iii and respondent 2 from the array of the parties.
The two shops built by the appellant in the shrine were declared to be companytinued to be in his possession subject to his performing the worship in the same way as was done by his ancestors.
In furtherance thereof, the appeal was remanded to the trial Court for companysideration of the matter afresh as against defendants 2 to 4.
The clauses companytained in the memo were that the appellant shall companytinue to be in occupation as Manager of the trust for its administration and the deities installed in the plaint schedule property.
Firstly, there is a difficulty in the way of the appellant for the reason that respondent 1 iii and respondent 2 died and though steps were directed to be taken, numbersteps have been taken as against them.
In furtherance thereof, the suit came to be dismissed.
Leave granted.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
The appellant was impleaded as first defendant.
