Karnataka High Court
Shri Shafeeq Ahamed T J vs Shri Chandrashekharappa on 3 December, 2021
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
RSA 1473/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
R.S.A.No.1473/2016
BETWEEN:
Shri Shafeeq Ahamed T.J.
S/o late Mohammed Jaffer,
Age: 47 years,
Agriculturist,
R/o. Kodi Camp, Tarikere,
Chikkamagaluru district-577101. ... APPELLANT
(By Sri Shivashankar.S.K., Adv.)
AND:
Shri Chandrashekharappa
S/o Gowrappa,
Age: 54 years,
C/o. Shivakumar,
Buldozer Contractor,
Maruthi Street,
Tarikere Town,
Chikkamagaluru District-577101. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri H.Malatesh, Adv.)
This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of
CPC against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2016 passed
in RA No.27/2000 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, at
Chikkamagaluru, dismissing the appeal and confirming the
judgment and decree dt:15.04.2000 passed in OS.No.387/1993
on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Addl. JMFC.,
Tarikere.
RSA 1473/2016
2
This appeal coming on for reporting settlement, this day,
the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the
learned Counsel for the respondent jointly submit that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably settled out
of court at the intervention of elders and well-wishers of
both the parties. They have filed a compromise petition
under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC which has been signed by
the parties as well as by their respective learned advocates.
The terms of the compromise petition reads as under:
"1. The appellant here in filed the suit
bearing O.S.No.387/1993 before the Civil
Judge (Jr.Dvn) and JMFC, Tarikere for
Declaration and the permanent injunction
against the defendant/respondent, stating
that, he purchased the property measuring
1.03 acres in Sy.No.105/2 by registered sale
deed. The defendant/respondent here in
objected the same by filing the written
statement that the plaintiff/appellant has
right only in respect of 39 guntas and
remaining 4 guntas is belongs to him. The
defendant/respondent also stated that he
purchased the same from one Kanamma, and
in 4 guntas of land he already sold 1 gunta of
land. The defendant/respondent denied that
the plaintiff/appellant has no right in 4
guntas and he has the right only in 0.39
guntas of land. The suit filed by the
RSA 1473/2016
appellant/plaintiff was partly decreed stating
that the plaintiff/appellant herein is in
possession of only 0.39 guntas, and dismissed
the suit in respect of 0.04 guntas of land vide
order dated 15.04.2000.
2. Challenging the order passed in
OS.No.387/1993 in respect of the 0.04 guntas
of land the appellant/plaintiff filed the appeal
in RA.No.27/2006 before the Court of Fast
Track at Tarikere. The Fast Track Court at
Tarikere vide order dated 16.11.2006
dismissed the appeal filed by the
plaintiff/appellant and confirmed the order
passed in OS.No.387/1993.
3. It is submitted that challenging the both
the orders the Appellant/Plaintiff filed the
appeal before the Hon'ble High Court in RSA
No.645/2007, the Hon'ble High Court after
hearing both the parties allowed the appeal
vide order dated 21.02.2012 and set-aside the
order passed by the lower appellate court
order and remanded to lower appellate court
for taking further action.
4. It is submitted that, the Hon'ble High
Court while remitting the matter observed
that and ordered that, 'it is to be ascertained
as to whether 4 guntas of land which fell short
to the plaintiff in Sy.No.105/2 is due to the
mistake occurred in measuring the property.'
5. It is submitted that, in the suit the
defendant is examined as DW.1, he has
claimed 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.105/2
stating that he has purchased from one
Smt.Kanamma, and he started to construct a
house, the vendor of plaintiff has objected for
construction. The said Kanamma instituted
RSA 1473/2016
the suit against the vendor of the plaintiff, the
said suit was decreed in favor of Kanamma
who is the vendor of 4 guntas of plot to the
plaintiff/appellant. The defendant is in
possession and enjoyment of 4 guntas and out
of which 1 gunta sold to Gowramma.
According to the defendant, the plaintiff land
come towards eastern side of the defendant's
land.
6. It is submitted that, the defendant is
absolute owner of the remaining 3 guntas of
land, and now he is ready to release his right
over the 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.105/2 in
favour of the appellant/plaintiff by this
compromise petition.
7. As per the terms and conditions the
respondent/defendant herein not claiming
any right, title, interest or possession over the
1.03 acres of property in Sy.No.105/2, of
Galihalli cross, Tarikere town,
Chikkamagaluru district.
8. The respondent/defendant has received
an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine
Lakhs) from the appellant herein, and the
respondent herein don't have any objection in
decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff in
OS.No.387/1993, and also he doesn't have
any objection to set-aside the order passed in
RA.27/2000 ordered by the II Addl. District
Judge at Chikkamagaluru."
2. The parties have appeared in person before this
Court and they have been identified by their respective
advocates. The parties, on query, have stated that they
RSA 1473/2016
have voluntarily settled the dispute without any influence
or coercion and the appellant has paid a sum of
Rs.9,00,000/- to the respondent who has admitted the
receipt of the said amount in lieu of his right, title and
interest in respect of the suit schedule property which
includes four guntas of land as against which the suit was
dismissed.
3. In view of the above, the compromise petition dated
03.12.2021 filed by the parties to the appeal is placed on
record. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the
compromise petition.
4. Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of the
compromise petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
