Karnataka High Court
Sri Nabi Sab S/O Pinjar Moula Sab vs Sri Venkata Reddy on 24 January, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
RSA.NO.369/2006 (SP)
BETWEEN
1. SRI NABI SAB S/O PINJAR MOULA SAB
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1a SMT.ALIMA W/O LAE SRINABISAB,
BYRADEVANA HALLI BELLARY TQ AND DIST
1b. SRI.HUSSAIN SAB, S/O NABISAB,
REDDY ONI,
BYRADEVANA HALLI, BELLARY-583 117
1c. SRI.MOULASAB, S/O NABISAB,
AGASARA ONI,
BYRADEVANA HALLI, BELLARY-583 117
1d. SMT.BIBI W/O BAKSHAVALI,
WARD NO.1,
BYRADEVANA HALLI, BELLARY-583 117
1e. SRI.RAMZAN SAB, S/O NABISAB,
153/82, HULAGAPPA STREET, BELLARY-583 117
1f. SMT.HUSENA BEE W/O SAIBANNA KURLAGOUD,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
BELLARY-583 116.
1g. SRI.HONNURVALI, S/O NABISAB,
HONNAMMA GUDI ONI,
BYRADEVANA HALLI, BELLARY-583 117
1h. SMT.RAJAMMA W/O MALAKANA,
2
H.NO.1374, WARD NO.6, INDIRA NAGAR,
EMMIGANUR, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, BELLARY-583113.
1i SMT.GOU SABEE W/O MUNNASAB,
NO.1, ETTGI, MUDDAPURA NO.2,
EMMIGANUR, HOSPET, BELLARY-583113.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.B.D.HEGDE ASSOCIATES)
AND
1 . SRI VENKATA REDDY
S/O YERVA THIMMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2 . SRI C NAGAREDDY
S/O CHATLA GULAPPAR
3 . SRI RAGHAVA REDDY
S/O THIMMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND
R/AT BYRADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE
BELLARY TQ AND DIST
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHASTRI & HEGDE ASSOCIATES FOR R1 & R2,
SRI.M.GURURAJ, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI.V.SRINIVAS, SRI.BSATEESH, SRI.S.A.PRABHU, ADVS. FOR C/R1,
SRI.V.SRINIVAS, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD: 25.11.2005 PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/1998
ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT - II,
BELLARY ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD: 09.01.1998 PASSED IN OS. 4/1994
ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) BELLARY. TRAIL COURT
DISMISSED THE SUIT. APPELLATE COURT ALLOWED THE APPEAL
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
There is no representation on behalf of for the
appellants.
2. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for
the respondents submitted to this court that the matter is
amicably settled between the parties out of court and the
compromise deed is also executed on non-judicial bond of
Rs.100/- on 30.03.2021.
3. Today, learned counsel for the respondents has
filed memo indicating the terms of settlement and has also
furnished copy of the compromise deed dated 30.03.2021
entered into between the appellants/plaintiffs and
respondents/defendants.
4. Perused the said compromise deed.
Respondents/defendants who are the owners of the suit
schedule property has paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to the
appellants/plaintiffs who is agreement holder towards full
and final settlement. The compromise deed also indicates
that appellants/plaintiffs have handed over the possession
to the respondents/defendants. In the said compromise
deed, appellants/plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw the
present appeal.
5. Since the matter is settled, this court is of the
view that no purpose will be served in further adjourning
the matter. Probably, it appears that appellants having
received a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- are not showing any
interest or courtesy to report the settlement to this court.
Therefore, this court left with no option but to accept the
memo, which is submitted by the respondents/defendants
along with the compromise deed.
6. The memo along with the compromise deed is
taken on record.
7. In view of amicable settlement between the
appellants/plaintiffs and respondents/defendants pursuant
to compromise deed dated 30.03.2021, the present appeal
does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal
stands disposed off, in view of the amicable settlement out
of the court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS/-
