IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATl THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHl I.A No.1 of 2025 in/and APPEAL SUIT NO: 637 OF 2019 Between : Majeti Naga Bharat Bushan, S/o. Narayana Rao, aged about 55 years, R/o D.No. 21-2-4/1, Jandachettu Street, Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada ...Appellant/Respondent-1/Defendant-1 AND 1. Kollipara Janardhana Rao, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 60 years, R/o Amar Jewellary Shop No.10, Krishna Gold Market, Sivalayam Street, Vijayawada-1. 2. Dhooli Appa Rao, S/o. Late Appa Rao, aged about 61 years, R/o. D.No. 41-20-5/53, Kalpana Prints Road, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada. 3. Kollipara Subba Rao, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 51 years, R/o. 23-13-7, First Floor, F4 Sai Krishna Towers, Tadankivari Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayavyada. .I.Respondent/ Respondent -3 APPEAL SUIT NO: 637 OF 2019 Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2019 passed in I.A No. 601 of 2013 in OS No. 598 of 2011 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. lANO: 1 OF2025 Petition under Order 23 Rule 3 R/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispose of the appeal in A.S. No. 637 of 2019 by recording the compromise, the terms of which are being filed herewith. The appeal suit and I.A.No.1 of 2025, coming this day for order as to settlement in the presence ofSmt Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Sri K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Appellant and the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 through respective advocate having filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 requesting the court to pass decree in terms of Memorandum of Compromise entered into between them and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the Joint Memorandum of Compromise purporting to have been signed by the parties and their advocates and filed with the said I.A.No.1 of 2025, it is appearing from the said Memorandum of compromise that the parties herein have entered into compromise and settled the matter in terms of compromise filed in lA.No.1 of 2025. This Court DOTH RECORD the terms of the said Joint Memorandum of Compromise the original whereof is filed in the record of the said I.A.No.1 of 2025 and a copy whereof is annexed hereto and Doth in terms of the said Memorandum of Compromise, order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in terms of compromise; That the I,A.No.1 of 2025 be and is hereby allowed; That the terms of the compromise entered into between the parties herein are : i. That at present, the schedule property I'S an open Site and the Old building was demolished on 19.08.2022 on the agreement of the both parties i.e., appeIIant and lst respondent. The old assessment number of the schedule property -is 8011A and New Assessment number is 60726 vide D.No.ll-49-320, CDMP No.1073025040, Ward -ll/1, Revenue Ward -6, BIock 2, NTS Vijayawada -520 001 ii. That both the appellant and the let respondent came to compromise got a building construction approved plan consisting of iii. lV. V. three floors of RCC building in which each floor contains 4 shops. That it is agreed between the appeIIant and the lst respondent that a new RCC building consisting of three floors has to be constructed as per the building construction plan prepared on consensus of both parties in the open site of the schedule property and that the expense for the said construction has to be borne by the appellant and the 1 respondent 50yo each. That it is also agreed between the appellant and the lst respondent that the amount that used for the purpose of obtaining all permissions for construction are also to borne by both the parties 50% each- That it is also agreed between the appellant and the lst respondent that as per the approved plan prepared, a total to 12 shops were constructed in the building, consisting of 4 shops each in 3 floors. Every shop was assigned with a number and the same was Vl. mentioned in the plan clearly. The shops belonging to the Appellant are Shop Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 10,12 and the shops belonging to the RespondentNo.1 are 1, 3, 6, 8, 9and ll. That it is agreed between the appellant and the lst respondent that both the parties acquire one shop facing towards, South to appellant and one shop facing towards south and west to lst respondent on ground floor. The appellant acquires shop Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12 as per the Construction plan and the lst respondent acquires shop Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9. ll. A copy of the said construction plan is filed herewith for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Court. vii. That it is agreed that 2 feet of area is left on the West Side of the building for the purpose of ingress and egress of building and that both the parties have only easement rights over the said area. Neither the appeIIant nor the let respondent has any k'lnd of salable right over the same. viii. That it is agreed that 6.6 feet is left in between the shops that are lX. X. XI. facing towards South and West for the purpose of arranging lift and staircase and that the said area is also shall be used by both the parties without any dispute as common area. No construction should be made by both the parties in common area. That it is agreed that both the parties i.e., the appellant and the lSt respondent shall bear their own costs in getting registered the said shops in their name. That it is agreed between the both parties that both the parties are entitled to sell their respective share of the shops to third parties without the consent of the one another. lt is also been agreed between both appellant and lst respondent that any legal issues arise during construction or after, it is the responsibility of individual side, who raised dispute to resolve the same. That it is agreed between the appellant and the lst respondent herein that both the appellant and the respondent shall bear their own Costs indiVl'dually with regard to the expenses in Suit and other proceedings in the court of law. xii. That before settlement of this issue, there was a final decree application filed by the lSt respondent in I.A.No.601/2013 in O.S.No.598/2011 on the file of Hon'ble lst Addl, Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, The Hon'ble Trial Court was pleased to pass final decree impugned in the present appeal thereby dividing suit Schedule Property into two shares. As per terms of said final decree "A" part out of Suit Schedule Property was allotted to lSt respondent and "B" part was allotted to appeIIant. Though the lSt respondent got registered instrument vide Doc. No.11197/2019, dt. 01.10.2019 in his favour for "A" part. It is hereby agreed by both appellant and lst respondent would have joint undivided ownership rights and possession over each part "A" and "B" to both of them equally and the said registered document vide Doc. No. 11197/2019, dt. 01.10.2019 hereby stands cancelled and the same shall not be acted upon by lSt respondent and both parties acquire equal, undivided rights over suit schedule properties from today as per these terms of compromise being recorded herein. xiii. That it is agreed between appellant and lst respondent herein that the above terms of compromise and the allotment of the shops as per the construction plan should become part of the compromise decree. xiv. That Both parties to bear their respective costs. xv. That the entire edifice of the plaint schedule property is within the limits of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation area in an extent of 80.8 Sq. Yards/67.56 Sq. Meters and out of the same both the parties i.e.. appellant and lst respondent own an extent of undivided 40.4 Sq. Yards/33.78 Sq. Meters each. The appellant has purchased his undivided share of 40.4 Sq. Yards/33.78 Sq. Meters from Dhooli Appa Rao, who remained exparte in the present Appeal on 03.09.2010, under a Registered Sale Deed vide Doc. No.4572/2010 of Gandhinagar SRO. xvi. That if the terms of compromise are not implemented and the construction is not started for any reasons, the final decree passed by the trial court revives and the lst respondent get the property as per the document executed by the Hon'ble Court bearing document No. 11197 of 2019, dt. 01.10.12019. The appellant get the remaining half share of the property and the lst respondent got the property as per the above said registered deed. xvii. That with the above terms and conditions, both the parties request Hon'ble Court to kindly pass a compromise decree, by setting aside the final decree dt.16.04.2019 in lA No. 601 of 2013 in OS No. 598 of2011. SCHEDULE NTR District Vijayawada Regi,stratjon District Vijayawada Municipal Corporation -Municipal Ward ll/1 -Revenue Ward No.6 -Block No.2-NTS CDMP No. 1073025040 No. 193 -Old Assessment No. 8011A -New Assessment No. 60726 -Present D.No.ll-49-320, Extent 80.8 Sq. Yards or 67.56 Sq. Metres being bounded by:- East : Property belonging to Koraprolu Satyanarayana South : Sivalayam Street West : Property belonging to Chebrolu Satyanarayana North : Property belong|lng to Tobacco Company //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU D E P Urvj=R,A3 SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Vijayawada, Krishna District 2.Three CD copies HIGH COURT DATED:03/04/2025 DECREE I.A No|1 of 2025 in/and AS.No.637 of 2019 ALLOWING THE I.A No.1 of 2025 ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT \iI LL=.=L. + EREE rff - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI A.S. No. 637 of2019 Between : MajetI' Naga Bharat Bhusan, S/o Narayana Rao, Aged about 59 Years, Hindu, Business, R/o 21 -24/1, Jandachettu street, Muthyalampadu, vijayawada. And 1. Kollipara Janardhana Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 65 Years, Hindu, Business, R/o Sivayalam Street, Vl'jayawada. 2. Dhooli Appa Rao, S/o Late Appa Rao, Aged about 67 Years, Hl'ndu, Business, R/o Kalpana Prints Road, KrI'Shnalanka, Vijayawada. 3. Kollipara Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 55 Years, HI'ndu, Business, R/o Sai Krishna Towers, Tadanki\,ari street, Satyanarayanapuram, vjjayawada. Appellant Respondents [RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THIS APPEAL SUIT] N FILED UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3OFCPC It is humbly submitted that the respondent No.1 filed a suit in o.s. No. 598 of 2011on the file of the court of I ADDL. Sr. CI-V" Judge, vjjayawada as against the appellant/respondents 2 & 3 herein for the relief of partition of plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one share each to let respondent and put him jn separate possession and enjoyment of the same and for other reliefs. After Full Trial, the cou Advocate' i Advocate for below was pleased to pass a prelI-mI'nary decree ® .If LI a) - •--pr-# Oco -i--rffi=-=`-=-- Appellant ldr Huh 1 St Respondent rrf ` NIQFTpea# ty IL- dt. 26.04.2013 thereby entitling the lSt respondent/plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his share in the Plaint Schedule Property. Subsequently, the lst respondent/plaintiff herein filed a petition before the Hon'ble I ADDL. Sr. Civil Judge, Vijayawada thereby praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner with a direction to effect the partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares® and to allot one suc;I, shaI-e tO hI'm and Put him in Separate possession thereof by passing a final decree in pursuant of preliminary decree dated 26.04.2013. Basing on the report of the Advocate commissioner, the court below passed orders thereby allotting A schedule property to the lSt respondent/plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2019 the appeIIant herein preferred the present appeal suit and the same is pendI'ng. While it was so, by the intervention of elders, medl-ators and well wishers of both parties the dispute is settled according to the terms and conditions shown below: TERMS OF COMPROMISE MUTUALL_Y_AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES: 1. At present, the schedule pl-operty is an open site and the old building was demolished on 19.08.2022 on the agreement of the both parties i.e., appellant and lSt respondent. The old assessment number of the schedule property is 8011A and New Assessment number is -60726 vide D.No.ll-49-320, CDMP No.1073025040, Ward -ll/1, Revenue Ward - 6, Block - 2, NTS - 193, Sivalayam Street, Vijayawada -520 001. Advocate i pr Jl 1 fyaZ£Cl-3,4,c~TPaife~Lha, Appellant \`l. ¢`L-wl Mwl~ , 1 St Respondent a 2i*T*ngfthaint`` i/,a? : f~- 2 Both the appe"ant and th= 1St respondent came to compromlse got a bul'Idjng construction approved plan consisting of three floors of RCC building in.whl-ch each floor contains 4 shops. 3 It ls agreed between the appeI]ant and the lst respondent that a new RCC building consistl'ng of three floors has to be constructed as per the building construction plan prepared on consensus of both partl'es in the open site of the schedule property and that the expense for the said construction has to be borne by the appellant and the lst respondent 50O/o each. 4. 't is also agreed between the appellant and the lst respondent that the amount that used for the purpose of obtaining a" permlssions for construction -are also to borne by both the parfjes 500/o each. 5. lt I-S also agreed between the appellant and the lst respondent that as per the approved plan prepared, a total to 12 shops were constructed I-n the buildl'ng, consisting of 4 shops each Ion 3 floors. Every shop was assigned with a number and the same was mentioned ln the plan clearly. The shops belonging to the Appellant are shop Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7,10,12 and the shops belonging to the Respondent No.1 are 1, 3, 6,8!9and11. 6. It I'S agreed between the appellant and the lSt respondent that both the parties-acquI're One shop facing towards south to appellant and one shop facing towards south and west to lSt respondent on ground ff--r TL__ _ floor. The acqulreS Shop Mos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12 as per the r<rj , {\t3FanjrfeTt3jngQtry AL. \±=IT - 1 st F3espondent -i.®= Construction plan and the lst respondent acquires shop Nos.1, 3, 6, 8, ' 9,ll. A copy 6f the said construction plan is filed herewith for kind consideration of the Honlb!e Court. 7. lt is agreed that 2 feet of area is left on the west side of the building for the purpose of ingress and egress of building and that both the parties have only easement rights over the saicl area. Neither the appellant nor the lSt respondent has any kind of salable rl-ght over L'1e Same. 8. lt is agreed that 6.6 feet is left in between the shops that are facing towards South and West for the purpose of arranging lift and staircase and th-at the said area is also sha" be used by both the parties without any dispute as common area. No construction should be made by both the parties in common area, 9. lt is agreed that both the pa,lies i.e., the appellant and the lst respondent shall bear their own costs in gettI'ng registered the Said shops in their name. 10. lt is agreed between the both parties that both the parties are entitled to sell their respective share of the shops to third parfies® without the consent of .the one another. It is also been agreed between both appellant and lSt respondent that any legal issues arise during construction Or after, it iS the responsibility of individual side, who raised dispute to I. ro£#: :a: Same. llant t Respondent qapife- -- -- -as rrty ,``,i,7i-JSAc@cch`li<Jtryyul, All. A-=ntthM- 1st Respondent ll. lt is agreed betweenthe ai £¥g I-- ellant and the lst respondent herein that both the appeIIant and the respondent shall bear their own costs individually with regard to the expenses in suit and other proceedings in the court of law. 12. Before settlement of this issue, there was a final decree application filed by the lst respondent in I.A.No.601/2013 in O.S.No.598/2011 on the file of Hon'ble lSt Addi, Senior Civil Judge, ViJ'ayaWada, The Hon'ble Trial Court was pleased to pass final decree impugned in the present appeal thereby dividing suit schedule property into two shares. As per terms of said final decree llA" part out of Suit Schedule Property was allotted to lst respondent and "B" part was allotted to appellant. Though the lSt respondent got registered instrument vide Doc. No.11197/2019, dt. 01.10.2019 in hI'S favour for "A" part. lt is hereby agreed by both appellant and lSt respondent would have joint undivided ownership rights and possession over each part "Al' and "B" to both of them equally and the said registered document vide Doc. No.11197/2019, dt. 01.10.2019 hereby stands cancelled and the same shall not-be acted upon by lst respondent and both parties acquire equal, undivided rights over suit schedule properties from today as per these terms of compromise being recorded herein. 13. It is agreed between appellant and lSt respondent hereI'n that the above terms of compromise and the allotment of the shops as per the construction plan should become part of the compromise decree. 14. Bothpa Advocate i Advocate for a tO bear their respective costs. rl I TVagran6rfuTT=haour, \l` L=an^t VI fu - 1 St Respondent .jtr 15. The entire edifice of the plaint Schedule Property is within the limits of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation area in an extent of 80.8 Sq. Yards/67.56 Sq. Meters and out of the same both the parties i.e., appellant and lSt respondent own an extent of undivided 40.4 Sq. yards/33.78 Sq. Meters each. The appellant has purchased hls undivided share of 40.4 Sq.Yards/33.78 Sq. Meters from Dhooli Appa Rao, who remained exparte in t!'1e Present Appeal on 03.09.2010, under a Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.4572/2010 of Gandhinagar SRO. 16. if the terms of compromise are not implemented and the construction is not started for any reasons, the final decree passed by the trial court revives and the 1 St respondent get the property as per the document executed by the Hon'ble Court bearing document No.11197 of 2019, dt. 01.10.12019. The appellant get the remaining half share of the property and the lSt respondent got the property as per the above salad registered deed. 17. With the above terms and conditions, both the parties request Hon'ble Court to kindly pass a compromise decree, by setting aside the final decree dt.16.04.2019 in lA No. 601 of 2013 in OS No. 598 of 2011. Advocate fo Advocate for 1 st R F.----r*- \-._`~. -I a) C= +"I ..(,i; - l`r,t' f\ ,ee;=``L34,a]cLfa~LShaof Appellant A `! t - Lap:ndty:!nr `fa- '---* , *rfei I&t, _fr:B: frf-- SCHEDULE NTR District - vijayawada Registration Dl-strict - vijayawada Municipal corporatl'on -Munl'cipaI Ward ll/1 -Revenue ward No.6 - Block No.2 -NTS CDMP No.1073025040 No.193 -Old Assessment No. 8O11A -New Assessment No. 60726 -Present D.No.ll-49-320, Extent 80.8 Sq.Yards or 67.56 Sq. Metres being bounded by:- East South VVIes i North Property belonging to Koraprolu satyanarayana Sivalayam street Property belonging to chebrolu satyanarayana Property belonging to Tobacco Company ndent r<,' a hra7¥-=i>hocyTa#±crty \l` ifehanfl-- 1 St Respondent -rg3z_€gZ__ lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATl THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI I.A No.1 of 2025 in/and APPEAL SUIT NO: 637 OF 2019 Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2019. passed in I.A No. 601 of 2013 in OS No. 598 of 2011 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Betwee n : Majeti Naga Bharat Bushan, S/o. Narayana Rao, aged about 55 years, R/o. D.No. 21-2-4/1, Jandachettu Street, Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada ...Appellant/Respondent-1 /Defendant-1 AND 1. Kollipara Janardhana Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 60 years, R/o Amar Jewellary Shop No.10, Krishna Gold Market, Sivalayam Street, Vijayawada-1 2. Dhooli Appa Rao, S/o Late Appa Rao, aged about 61 years, R/o D.No. 41-20-5/53, Kalpana Prints Road, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada 3. Kollipara Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 51 years, R/o 23-13-7, First Floor, F4 Sai Krishna Towers, Tadankivari Street, Satyanarayanapuram, V'ljayawada ..|Respondent/ Respondent -3 lA NO: 1 OF2020 petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the Circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the documents i.e.,1) Document No.11197/2019 dated o1.10.2019, Registered final decree Of SRO, Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada - 3, 2) Copies of Affidavit and petition in I.A.No. 601 of 2013 in O.S.No.598 of 2011, 3) Affidavit petition in I.A.No.489 of 2017 -ln I.A.No. 601 of 2013 'ln o.s.No.598 of 2011, 4) copies of Memos filed in I.A.No. 601 of 2013 in o.s.No.598 of 2011 as additional material Papers. lANO: 2OF2O19 petition under sect'lon 151 CPC praying that in the Circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2019 passed in lA. No.601/2013 in O.S. NO. 598/2011 on the file of the learned I Addl, Sr. Civil Judge, Vijayawada. IANO: 3OF2019 Betwee n : K. Janardhana Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 60 years, R/o Amar Jewellary Shop No.10, Krishna Gold Market, Sivalayam Street, Vijayawada-1 ...Petitioner/Respondent-1 AND 1. Majeti Naga Bharat Bushan, S/o Narayana Rao, aged about 55 years, R/o D.No. 21-2-4/1, Jandachettu Street, Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. Dhooli Appa Rao, S/o Late Appa Rao, aged about 61 years, R/o D.No. 41-20-5/53, Kalpana Prints Road, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada 3. Kollipara Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 51 years, R/a 23-13-7, First Floor, F4 Sai Krishna Towers, Tadankivari Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayaw'ada ...Respondent/ Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 30.09.2019 passed in I.A. No, 2/2019 in A.S. No. 637/2019. IANO: 1 OF2025 Petition under Order 23 Rule 3 R/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispose of the appeal in A.S. No. 637 of 2019 by recording the compromise, the terms of which are being filed herewith. Counsel for the AppeIIant : Smt Nimmagadda Revathi Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Sri K Sarvabhouma Rao The Court made the following: APHCO10320952019 lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl [3368] (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI FIRST APPEAL NO: 637/2019 Betwee n : 1.MAJETI NAGA BHARAT BUSHAN, S/O NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 21-2-4/1, JAN DACHETTU STREET, MUTYALAMPADU , VI JAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1.KOLLIPARA JANARDHANA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O AMAR JEWELLARY SHOP NO.10, KRISHNA GOLD MARKET, SIVALAYAM STREET, VIJAYAWADA-1. 2. DHOOLI APPA RAO, S/O LATE APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 41-20-5/53, KALPANA PRINTS ROAD, KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 3.KOLLIPARA SUBBA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O 23-13-7, FIRST FLOOR, F4 SAI KRISHNA TOWERS, TADANKIVARI STREET, SATYANARAYANAPU RAM, VIJAYAWADA ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO 2.SUNKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD The Court made the following Judgment: I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI IA No.1 OF 2025 in/and Appeal Suit No:637 OF 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel respondent No.3. 2, Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that respondent No.2 set ex-parte throughout the proceedings in the appeal. 3. It is submitted that the appellant/Plaintiff and respondent No.1 are in attendance, identified by their respective COunSel. The contents of the compromise terms Were read-over tO the respective parties. They admitted the same aS true and COrreCt, and reported no objection to allow the appeal, decreeing the suit -In terms Of the compromise. 4. Learned counsel forthe respondent No.3 would submitthat the respondent No.3 has no objection for the terms Of compromise, and suit may be decreed in terms of the compromise. The same is placed on record. 5. ln the light of foregoing facts and circumstances, compromise recorded, subject to payme-nt of stamp duty if any and registration. 6. ln that view of the matter, the Appeal Suit is allowed and final decree Its Passed in terms Of compromise. 7. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed and A.S.No.637 of 2019 is allowed in terms of compromise. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Registry is directed to enclose terms of compromise to the Decree. lnterlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/-M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR dr5- SECTION OFFICER 1. The I AddI-tiOnal Cl'vI'l Judge(Senl'or Division), vijayawada, Krjshna Distrl'ct (with records if any) 2. One CC to Smt. Nimmagadda RevathI-Advocate [opuc] 3. One CC to Sri Sunkara Rajendra prasad Advocate [opuc] 4. One CC to Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao Advocate [opuc] 5. The Section officer, vR Section, High Court ofAndhra pradesh at Amaravathi 6. Three cD Copies stu * along with the terms of compromise filed in I.A No.1 of 2025 ii= i= i= i= J HIGH COURT DATED:03/04/2025 COIV]MON JUDGIV[ENT + DECREE I.A No.1 of 2025 in/and AS.No.637 of 2019 ALLOWING THE I.A No.1 of 2025 ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT ff _ HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT. AMARAVATI A.S. No. 637 of2019 Between : Majeti Naga Bharat Bhusan, S/a Narayana Rao, Aged about 59 Years, Hindu, Business, R/o 21-2-4/1, Jandachettu Street, Muthyalampadu, Vijayawada. And 1. Kollipara Janardhana Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 65 Years, Hindu, Business, R/a Sivayalam Street, Vijayawada. 2. Dhoolj Appa Raol S/o Late Appa Rao, Aged about 67 YearsJ HI'ndu, Business, R/o Kalpana Prints Road, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada. 3. Kollipara Subba Rao, S/a Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 55 Years, Hindu, Business, R/o Sai Krl'shna Towers, Tadanki\,ari Street, Satyanarayanapuram, vijayawada. Appellaht Respondents [RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THIS APPEAL SuIT] £9E4EB9D4±£i_E PETITION FI_LED_u_NDER ORDER 23 RuL.E 3, q_F__Qj¥ It is humbly submitted that the respondent No.1 filed a Suit in a.s. No. 598 of 2011on the file of the court of I ADDL. Sr. Civil Judge, Vijayawada as against the appellant/respondents 2 & 3 herein for the relief of partition of plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one share each to let respondent and put hI'm in Separate possession and enjoyment of the same and for other reliefs. After Full Trial, the cou Advocate i Advocate for 1 below was pleased to pass a preliminary decree - --JV-E _ Out i--fte=5giv=-_ ry1 ` ntoffL~±atcife try I Appellant \c, Appel'ant N` 1St Respondent I- ng.. dt. 26.04.2013 thereby entitling the lst respondent/plaintiff for parfjtion and separate possessI-On Of his share jn th6 plaint schedule property subsequently, the lst respondent/plal'nt,Off here,'n filed a petl'tI'On before the Hon'ble I ADDL. Sr. Civ" Judge, vljayawada thereby praying to appoint an Advocate commissioner with a dl'rectjon to effect the partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to a"ot one such share to him and put him in separate possession thereof by passing a final decree jn pursuant of prelimlnary decree dated 26.04.2013 Basing on the report of the Advocate commlssI-Oner, the court below passed orders thereby allottlng A schedule property to the lst respondent/p,a,ntiff. Being aggrleVed by the order dated 16 04.2019 the appe'lant h6rel'n preferred the present appeal suit and the same ls pending. while lt was so, by the llltervention of elders, mediators and we" wishers of both parties the dl'spute is settled according to the terms and conditions shown below.I OF ES 1. At present, the schedule p,-operty ls an open site and the old building was demolished on 19 08.2022 on the agreement of the both parties ,I.e., appellant and lst respc,ndent The old assessment number of the schedule property is 8011A and New Assessment number ls 60726 vl'de D.No.ll-49-320, CDMP No.1O73025040, Ward -ll/1, Revenue ward - 6, Block - 2, NTS - 193, SI-Valayam street, V,'jayawada -520 001. Advocate ) Advod¥:te ri| -I LT3f e\ iT ^`,l!ap#RAT=_A_?qui3haha, zz Appellant \l. \L-th J"- 1St F{espondent <, p?.. 2. Both the appellant and the let respondent came to compromise got a bujldjng constructl'on approved plan consl-stI'ng Of three floors of RCC building in.which each floor contains 4 shops. 3. lt is agreed between the appellant and the lSt respondent that a new RCC building consisting of three floors has to be constructed as per the bu['lding construction plan prepared on consensus'of both partl'es in the open s,-te of the sche.dule property and that the expense for the said construction has to be borne by the appellant and the let respondent 50% each. 4. It is also agreed between the appellant and the lSt respondent that the amount that used for the purpose of obtaining a" perml'ssjons for construction ,are also to borne by both the parties 50% each. 5 It ls also agreed between the appellant and the lSt respondent that as per the approved plan prepared, a total to 12 shops were constructed in the buildl'ng, consist,'ng of 4 shops each ln 3 floors. Every shop was assigned with a number and the same was mentioned Ion the plan clearly. The shops belongI'ng tO the Appellant are shop Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7,10,12 and the shops belonging to the Respondent No.1 are 1, 3, 618I9and11. 6. lt is agreed between the appel'ant and the lSt respondent that both the parties'acqul're one shop facing towards south to appellant and One shop floor. The facing towards south and west to let respondent on ground ant acquires shop Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7,10,12 as per the -I Jj® ® I-_J[ LL < clt_gB:--oE---.ffi---`--- _.®------ r<~ I I {\!gF-*rfetshaertr nu \i=*IT - 1 St Respondent -i."r- construction plan and the lst respon`dent acquires shop Nos.1, 3, 6, 8, -9,ll. A copy df the said construction plan is filed herewith for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Court. 7. lt is agreed that 2 feet of area is left on the West Side of the building for the purpose of ingress and egress of building and that both the parties have only easement rights over the said area. Neither the appellant nor the lSt respondent has any kind of salable right over the Same. 8. lt is agreed that 6.6 feet is left in between the shops that are fac.lng towards South and West for the purpose' of arranging lift and staircase and that the said area is also shall be used by both the parties without any dispute as common area. No construction should be made by both the parties in'common area. 9. 't is agreed that both the parties i.e., the appellant and the lst respondent shall bear their own costs in getting registered the said shops in their name. 10. lt is agreed between the both parties that both the parties are entitled to sell their respective share of the shops to third parties without the consent of the one another. lt is also been agreed between both appellant and lSt respondent that any legal issues arise during construction or after: it is the responsibility of individual side, who raised dispute to Advocat Advoca the same. Respondent tJfa` rf7 ``\,fat# crl3/1C5`al{-T<AMJthul, \c. 'A=ntuM- 1St Respondent ¢grth ll lt ls agreed between the a~~p;3:Ha=and the let respondent hereln that both the appellant and the respondent _shall bear their own costs individually with regard to the expenses in suit and other proceedings in the court of law. 12. Before settlement of this issue, there was a final decree application filed by the lSt respondent in I.A.No.601/2013 in O.S.No.598/2011 on the file of Hon'b'e lst Addj, Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, The Hon'ble Trial Court was pleased to pass final decree impugned in the present appeal thereby dividing Suit Schedule Property into two shares. As per terms of saic{ Final decree "A'' part out of Suit Schedule Property was allotted to lSt respondent and "B" part was allotted to appellant. Though the lSt respondent got registered instrument vide Doc. No.11197/2019, dt. 01.10.2019 in his favour for "A" part. lt is hereby agreed by both appellant and lst respondent would have joint undivided ownership rights and possession over each part l'A" and "B" to both of them equally ancJ the said regl'stered document vide Doc. No.11197/2019, dt. O.1.10.2019 hereby stands cancelled and the same shall not-be acted upon by lSt respondent and both parties acquire equal, undivided rights over suit schedule properties from today as per these terms of comproml'se being recorded herein. 13. It is agreed between appellant and lst respondent herein thatthe above terms of compromise and the allotment of the shops as per the construction plan should become part of the compromise decree. 14. Bo Advocate Advocate bear their respective costs. rl rvaff-an6ckRha*AcLrJ \l` #an^tVItw ~ 1 St Respondent _!tr 15. The entire edifice Of the Plaint Schedule Property is Within the limits of vijayawada Municipal Corporation area 'ln an extent Of 80.8 Sq. yards/67.56 Sq. Meters and Out Of the Same both the Parties i.e., appellant and lst respondent OWn an extent Of undivided 40.4 Sq. yards/33.78 Sq. Meters each. The appellant has Purchased his undiv'lded share of 40.4 Sq.Yards/33.78 Sq. Meters from Dhooli Appa Rao, who remained eXParte in the Present Appeal on 03.09.2010, under a Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.4572/2010 of Gandhinagar SRO. 16. if the terms Of compromise are not imPlemented and the construction is not started for any reasons, the final decree passed by the trial court revives and the lst respondent get the Property aS Per the document executed by the Hon'ble Court bearing document No. 11197 of 2019, dt. 01.10.12019. The appellant get the remaining half Share Of the property and the let respondent got the property aS Per the above said registered deed. 17. W®lth the above terms and conditions, both the Parties request Hon'ble Court to kindly Pass a compromise decree, by Setting aside the final decree dt.16.04.2019 m lA No. 601 of 2013 in OS No. 598 of #),.TJ>#).. +T 2011. Advocate fo Advocate for 1 St R J-I ® _-D5 \. rrJ r\ ,a<;=-a/n cDlclfa~lS/»u5£cvy, A L ~ #nen:na:#- 1s[ Respondent B: -a_ SCHEDULE NTR District - vijayawada Regl'stration District - Vijayawada Municipal corporation -Municipal ward ll/1 -Revenue Ward No.6 - Block No.2 -NTS CDMP No.1073025040 No.193 -old Assessment No. 8011A -New Assessment No. 60726 -Present D.No.ll-49-320J Extent 80.8 Sq.Yards or 67.56 Sq. Metres being bounded by:- East South VVes i North Advocate Advocate for lst Property belongI'ng tO Koraprolu Satyanarayana SI'Valayam Street Property belonging to chebrolu Satyanarayana Property belonging to Tobacco company ndent rT,,' , hrc17c=i3>hocyTZ9ife:T±cLO, \l` ifehanVI-- 1 st Respondent