Chaya Satish Polawar And Another vs Haribhau Govindrao Amilkanthwar ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16036 Bom

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        918 SECOND APPEAL NO.146 OF 2019
                        WITH CA/3419/2019 IN SA/146/2019


                      CHAYA SATISH POLAWAR AND ANOTHER
                                      VERSUS
    HARIBHAU GOVINDRAO AMILKANTHWAR (DIED) LRS UJJWALA AND
                                     OTHERS
                                        ...
               Mrs. Surekha G. Chincholkar, Advocate for appellants
             Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4
                                        ...

                                   CORAM :     SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

                                   DATE :      18th NOVEMBER, 2021


PER COURT :



1              Parties have arrived at compromise and the terms have been

placed on record, which are not marked Exh.'X'.           The applicants are the

original plaintiffs, who had filed suit for possession, perpetual injunction and

mesne profits. It is to be noted that now the original plaintiffs are admitting

the Will left by one Shantabai Yerawar on 16.12.1996 in favour of the

original defendant No.1 Haribhau. However, it appears that the defendants

had agreed to pay amount of Rs.40,00,000/- i.e. Rs.20,00,000/- each to the

appellants and out of that appellant No.2 has received amount of

2 SA_146_2019

Rs.4,00,000/-. It has been then mentioned that the remaining amount of

Rs.36,00,000/- in the form that Rs.20,00,000/- to appellant No.1 and

Rs.16,00,000/- to appellant No.2 will be paid by the defendants on or before

31.12.2021. A stipulation has been made that if the respondents failed to

pay the remaining amount, then the settlement would stand cancelled. In

view of this kind of settlement, definitely, the decree that will be passed,

wherein now the plaintiffs admit that they were not having any existing right

but they are receiving huge amount, in view of Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh

Major and others, 1995 (2) Mh.L.J., 916, wherein it has been observed that -

"If a compromise decree were to create for the first time right, title or interest

in immovable property of value of Rs.100/- or upwards in favour of any party

to the suit, the decree or order would require registration ." Though in this

case by this term no fresh right is created; yet, the right which was claimed in

the immovable property is in a way relinquished or in lieu of that claim of the

right in the immovable property, the plaintiffs are getting huge amount,

therefore, the compromise decree deserves registration.

2 The learned Registrar (Judicial) has verified the terms of

compromise and, therefore, in view of the said compromise terms Exh.'X' the

Second Appeal stands disposed of. Civil Application stands disposed of.

3              The Judgment and Decree passed in Special Civil Suit




                                          3                                       SA_146_2019

No.31/2008 by learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nanded on

16.04.2011 and the Judgment and order passed by learned District Judge-4,

Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No.192/2012 on 20.06.2018 is hereby set

aside. The suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No.31/2008 stands disposed of in terms

of compromise terms Exh.'X'.

4                Decree be drawn accordingly.


5                Copy of the decree be sent to the Sub Registrar, Nanded for

further action, in view of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, further in

view of amendment by Maharashtra State to Section 17 of the Indian

Registration Act.

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J. )

agd