Bombay High Court
Shahanurbi Hydersab vs Karimshah Sawarsha And Ors on 12 October, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
910 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10531 OF 2021
IN SA/484/2009
SHAHANURBI HYDERSAB
VERSUS
KARIMSHAH SAWARSHA AND ORS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Ms. M. A. Kulkarni
Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3: Mr. V. D. Patnoorkar(IN SA)
...
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE : 12-10-2021.
ORDER :
1. The parties have arrived at compromise. The terms of
settlement have been filed at Exhibit 'B' (page No.8 of the application).
Those terms are got verified through learned Registrar (Judicial). He
has submitted the report that the parties have accepted that they have
put signatures/thumb impressions on the compromise deed. They
admit the contents of the compromise and also the fact that no force
or fraud has been played upon them. Under such circumstances, the
compromise terms Exhibit 'B' are taken on record.
2. The appellant is the original plaintiff who had filed Regular Civil
Suit No.51 of 2003 for declaration of ownership and recovery of
possession. The suit was decreed. Plaintiff was declared a owner of
2 CA 10531-2021
the suit property and the defendants were directed to deliver vacant
possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. Thereafter, it appears
that the defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.63 of 2005
before District Court, Kandhar, District Nanded, and the learned
Adhoc District Judge-1, Kandhar allowed the appeal on 30-04-2009
thereby reversing the decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Loha, District Nanded. The suit filed by the plaintiff was
dismissed. Now by way of compromise, it is contended that the
original defendants have agreed to give right to the plaintiff to whom
now they are considering as niece and they are giving 40 R land as
her share and instead of giving the said land, it is stated that they
would give amount of Rs.5 lakh. Out of that amount, amount of
Rs.10,000/- is stated to have been given to her in front of Gav-
Panchayat and the defendants have agreed to pay amount of
Rs.4,90,000/- after the order passed by this Court.
3. Taking into consideration the decisions of the Lower Court and
now the terms of settlement, if at all the document requires stamp
duty to be recovered, then copy of the decree requires to be sent to
Sub-Registrar having jurisdiction over the lands situated in village
Hatni, Taluka Loha, District Nanded. With this conditions, the terms
3 CA 10531-2021
are accepted and following order is passed.
ORDER
1) The second appeal stands allowed in terms of
compromise Exhibit 'B'.
2) The Judgment and decree passed by both the
Courts below stands set aside. The said suit stands
decreed in terms of compromise terms Exhibit 'B' which
shall be the part of the decree.
3) Copy of the decree so prepared be sent to Sub-
Registrar having jurisdiction over lands situated in village
Hatni, Taluka Loha, District Nanded, for taking a cause
as to whether a registration is required with stamp duty,
if any.
4) No order as to costs.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
JUDGE
vjg/-
