Bombay High Court
Vedprakash M Harkar Thru ... vs Somnath Udhavrao Wattamwar And ... on 22 November, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
17-ca-10950-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
17 SECOND APPEAL NO.282 OF 1999
WITH CA/10950/2021 IN SA/282/1999
WITH CA/1483/2001 IN SA/282/1999
WITH CA/1435/2021 IN SA/282/1999
WITH CA/7554/2018 IN SA/282/1999
VEDPRAKASH M HARKAR THRU L.RS.ALKABAI DIED THROUGH LRS.
DEEPAK VEDPRASKH HARKAR AND ORS
VERSUS
SOMNATH UDHAVRAO WATTAMWAR AND ORS
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Suryawanshi D. N. & Mr. Suryawanshi P. D.
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. M. S. Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. D. G. Nagode
AGP for respondent Nos.4 to 6 : Mr. A. M. Phule
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE : 22.11.2021
ORDER :-
. Parties have entered into compromise. It will not be out of place
to mention here that there was already a partial compromise that was
granted by this Court by order dated 07.01.2019. It was between the
appellants and present respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, at that time,
there was no compromise between respondent No.1 and the appellants.
Now, even that compromise has taken place. The verification of the
compromise has been got done through learned Registrar (Judicial). It
has been stated that there was no pressure or coercion for any of the
(1)
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2021 04:06:05 :::
17-ca-10950-2021.odt
parties to enter into compromise. It appears that there was technical
lacuna as regards the legal representatives of respondent No.2. That
application is already allowed, however, the amendment has not been
carried out and, therefore, learned Advocate for the appellants to carry
out that amendment immediately.
2. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that though
earlier there was compromise between appellants and respondent Nos.2
and 3, which was recorded by this Court on 07.01.2019, now the terms
have varied and in the present compromise terms everything is included
and, therefore, he is not pressing for decree in terms of compromise
recorded by this Court on 07.01.2019. Therefore, taking into
consideration the compromise that has taken place between the
appellants and respondents, the second appeal stands disposed of in
terms of compromise Exhibit-'B'. However, the fact remains is that
certain parties are relinquishing their rights and lakhs of rupees are
agreed to be transferred. Therefore, in view of Maharashtra Amendment
to Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, the consent decree deserves
to be registered taking into consideration the decision to be taken by the
appropriate authority under the Act. Therefore, the copy of the consent
decree has to be given to the concerned authority. In view of the same,
following order is passed :-
(2)
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2021 04:06:05 :::
17-ca-10950-2021.odt
ORDER
I) The Second Appeal stands disposed of in view of
compromise arrived at between the parties, which is marked at
Exhibit-'B'.
II) The judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit
No.243 of 1980 by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed on
08.01.1987 and judgment and order passed in Regular Civil
Appeal No.123 of 1987 by learned 2 nd Additional District Judge,
Ambajogai on 12.02.1998 are hereby set aside. Regular Civil Suit
No.243 of 1980 stands disposed of in terms of compromise
Exhibit-'B'.
III) Copy of the compromise decree be sent to Sub Registrar,
Kaij having jurisdiction over the lands situated at Kaij for action to
be taken, if any.
IV) Decree be drawn accordingly.
V) Civil Application Nos.10950 of 2021, 1483 of 2001, 1435 of
2021 and 7554 of 2018 stand disposed of.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]
scm
