Dyamanagouda S/O Kallanagouda ... vs Veerappa S/O Maharudrappa ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3239 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3239 Kant
Judgement Date : 26 August, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Dyamanagouda S/O Kallanagouda ... vs Veerappa S/O Maharudrappa ... on 26 August, 2021

Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
           DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD

    DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

           RSA NO.100498/2020 (DEC)

BETWEEN :

DYAMANAGOU DA
S/O: KALLANAGOU DA ACHAMATTI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICU LTURE,
R/O; HANASI, TQ: NAVALGU ND.
                                       ... APPELLANT
(B Y SRI.B .S.SANGAT I, ADV.)

AN D :

VEERAPPA S/O: MAHARUDRAPPA S IR ASANGI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICU LTURE,
R/O; SHIRK OL, TQ: NAVALGU ND.
                                   ... RESPONDENT

(B Y SRI. GOPA L KRISHNA R.KALLI A DV. AND
  SRI PRAKASH R.BADIGER, ADV.)

      THIS REGU LAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDUR E
PRAYIN G T HIS CO URT T O SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND     DECREE    DATED   0 6.07.2020 PASSED  IN
R.A.NO.6/2018 ON THE FIL E OF T HE COURT OF TH E
SENIOR CIV IL J U DGE & JMFC, NAVALGU ND AND
THEREBY ALLOW THE JU DGMENT AND DECREE DATED
01. 01.2 018 PASS ED B Y THE COURT OF THE CIV IL
JUDGE & JMFC, NAVALGUND IN O.S.NO.150/ 2010.

     THIS A PPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER S THIS DAY ,
THE COU RT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 2


                     : JUDGMENT :

The GPA holder of the appellant and the

respondent are present before the Court. It is

stated that appellant-Dyamanagouda is

physically challenged person. Therefore, he is

represented by his GPA holder as above stated.

It is stated that copy of the Power of Attorney

is filed before the Trial Court as Ex.P1. The

GPA holder of the appellant stated that the

appellant has authorized him to enter into

compromise and accordingly he is present

before the Court by submitting joint memo

along with respondent.

2. Both the GPA holder of appellant and

respondent have submitted joint memorandum

of compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3

r/w 151 of CPC. Both the parties have stated

that they have arrived at settlement in terms

of the compromise petition and accordingly

both have prayed to modify the judgment and

decree in terms of the compromise petition.

3. The GPA holder of the appellant,

respondent and their respective learned

advocates have put their signatures on the

joint compromise petition.

4. The joint compromise petition is

taken on record. The compromise petition

reads as follows:

    "Herein           the             appellant       and
  respondent              have         entered        into

compromise by the advise of elders. The terms of the compromise are as under:

1) That the above appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Navalgund in R.A.No.6/2018 dated 06.07.2020 reversing the judgment and decree dated 01.01.2018 passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Navalgund in O.S.No.150/2010.

2) The plaintiff has filed suit before the Trial Court seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property

acre 0 guntas situated at Hansi Village of Navalgund taluk. The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 31.03.1992. The suit property has been purchased by Defendant No.2 Kallanagouda. At the time of execution of the registered sale deed dated 31.03.1992 the suit property has been purchased by Defendant No.2 as minor guardian to plaintiff for valuable consideration of Rs.36,000/- from one Bharamagouda S/o.Mudigouda Huded of Hansi. After attaining age of majority the plaintiff started cultivating the suit property. This being the fact the Defendant No.1 taking advantage of Defendant No.2 without knowledge and behind the back of plaintiff have created bogus sale deed in the name of Defendant No.1 on 18.10.2006. The Defendant No.2 has no authority in law to execute the sale deed in favour of Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.2 with an intention to swallow the suit property and to deprive the legitimate right and interest has created such a sham and colourable, bogus document. In view these facts and circumstances the parties to the lis have entered into a compromise, terms are as under.

a. Now the appellant/plaintiff is ready to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the Defendant No.1 by cash and after accepting the said sum the sale deed dated 18.10.2006 executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and the appeal filed before this Hon'ble Court may kindly be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower first appellate court by restoring the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.150/2020.

b. The parties to the lis are hereinafter given up all their rights accordingly decree may kindly be passed in terms of above prayer by allowing R.S.A. and drawing decree in terms of above prayer.

5. It is submitted that both the parties

on their own volition have got compromised the

matter without there being any pressure or

coercion by other parties and therefore

submitted the compromise petition entered

between them is completely on their voluntary

act.

6. In view of the compromise petition

filed by the GPA holder of the appellant and

respondent above stated, the appeal is liable to

be disposed of in terms of the compromise

petition. The compromise petition shall be part