Karnataka High Court
Bahubali S/O Annarao Veergoudar vs Megha D/O Vinod Veergoudar on 7 January, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
R.F.A. No.100138/2020 (PAR/POS)
BET WEEN
BAHUB ALI S/O ANNARAO VEERGOU DAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: LEGAL PRACTIT IONER,
R/O: SHANTISAGA R GALLI,
KANBARGI, B ELAGAVI- 590016.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MALLIKAR JUNSWAMY B.HIREMAT H, ADVOCAT E)
AND
1. MEGHA D/O VINOD VEERGOUDAR,
AFT ER MARRIAGE MEGHA
W/O B AHUB ALI JAINAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: HOU SEHOLD WORK,
R/O: NO.6, 5 T H CROSS,
KASTURI LAY OU T,
RAJGOPAL NAGAR,
PEENYA, 2 N D STAGE,
B ENGALU RU-560058.
2. SUSHILA WD/O B HU PAL VEERGOUDAR,
AGE: 81 YEARS,
OCC: HOU SEHOLD WORK,
R/O: H.NO.65 a nd 66,
SHANTISAGAR GA LLI,
KANB ARGI,
B ELAGAVI- 590016 .
3. MAMATA WD/O PRADEEP VEER GOU DAR,
AGE 45 YEARS,
2
OCC: HOU SEHOLD WORK,
R/O: PL OT NO.16 43,
NEAR PRATIKSHA HOTEL,
2 N D STAGE, RAMTEERTH NAGAR,
KANB ARGI, BELAGAVI- 59 0016.
4. YASH S/O PRADEE P VEERG OU DAR,
AGE 22 YEARS,
OCC: HOU SEHOLD WORK,
R/O: PL OT NO.16 43,
NEAR PRATIKSHA HOTEL,
2 N D STAGE, RAMTEERTH NAGAR,
KANB ARGI, BELAGAVI- 59 0016.
5. SHRI GIR ISH S/O KRISHNA PPA SAR WAD,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O AT POST: MALALI,
TQ: MU DHOL,
DIST: B ELAGAVI- 587313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.D.GU NDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI S.B .PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS R EGU LAR FIRST A PPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF C.P.C., 1908,
AGAINST THE JU DGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24. 01.2020
PASSED IN O.S.N O.195/ 2017 ON T HE FILE OF THE I ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JU DICIAL MAGIST RATE,
BELAGAVI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PART ITION
AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEA L COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, TH IS DAY
THE COU RT MADE T HE FOLL OWING:
ORDER
This appeal is filed by defendant No.4
challenging the judgment and decree dated
24.01.2020 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil
Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Belag avi in
O.S.No.195/2017, wherein the suit of the plaintiff
was decreed and it was declared that the sale deed
dated 17.09.2013 executed by defendant No.1 in
favour of defendant No.5 in respect of the property
shown at Sl.No.(ii) of the suit schedule 'B' property is
illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
It was further declared that the sale deed dated
22.02.2014 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of
defendant No.4 in respect of the property shown at
Sl.No.(i) of suit schedule 'B' property is illegal, null
and void and same is not binding on the plaintiff. It
was further declared that gift deed dated 08.06.2012
executed by late Bhupal Veergoudar in favour of
Pradeep Veergoudar in respect of the property shown
at Sl.No.(i) of suit schedule 'A' is null and void and is
not binding on the plaintiff. Plaintiff was held entitled
for partition and separate possession of her 4/9 t h
share in the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
as well as the learned counsel appearing for
respondents in this appeal jointly submit that the
present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court only to the extent it
relates to suit schedule 'B' property and the dispute
between the parties has been amicably settled.
3. The parties to the appeal have filed a
compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of
C.P.C. which has been signed by all the parties and
their respective advocates. The parties are present
before the Court and they have been identified by
their respective advocates. On verification, the
parties have stated that they have settled the dispute
between themselves amicably outside the Court
without there being any undue influence and coercion
and the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily.
The plaintiff who is present before the Court has
admitted that she has received a sum of `12,00,000/-
and `38,00,000/- as stated in the compromise
petition vide two separate demand drafts. The terms
and conditions of the compromise petition reads as
follows:
"2. During the pendency of above appeal,
due to intervention of elder members the
appellant and respondent No.1 have arrived
at a settlement as per the following terms:-
(i) In lieu of share of respondent No.1 in
the land bearing R.S.No.459/1 measuring
guntas both situated at Kanbargi village,
Taluk and District Belagavi, she has agreed
to receive a sum of `12,00,000/- from
appellant herein towards full and final
settlement. In terms thereof the appellant
has paid a sum of `50,00,000/- by way of
D.D. bearing No.031308 dated 31.12.2021
drawn on HDFC Bank, Belgaum and D.D.
bearing No.031329 dated 07.01.2021 for
`38,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank,
Belgaum.
(ii) In view of receipt of `50,00,000/-
respondent No.1 shall have no claim
whatsoever in respect of R.S.No.459/1
measuring 16 guntas and R.S.No.459/4
measuring 16 guntas both situated at
Kanbargi village, Taluk and District Belagavi
and she acknowledges and admit that the
sale deed dated 17.09.2013 and the sale
deed dated 22.02.2014 are valid and
binding on her.
(iii) It is agreed that the compromise is
executable decree, if any parties violates
the terms and conditions of compromise
they have got every right to execute the
same against each other, in accordance
with law.
(iv) The settlement having been entered
into only in respect of suit schedule 'B'
property the judgment and decree dated
24.01.2020 of the trial Court in
O.S.No.195/2017 passed by the 1st
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Belagavi at Belagavi be
modified to that extent and judgment and
decree insofar as suit schedule 'A' property
shall remain unaltered.
(v) Respondent No.2, 3 and 4 do admit the
due execution of sale deed in favour of
appellant and respondent No.5 they do not
have any objection for recording this
compromise so also they have given up all
their rights, if any, in the suit schedule 'B'
property.
3. Both appellant and respondent No.1
have read this compromise petition and
having understood the terms herein and the
compromise arrived at is out of their free
will and volition."
4. Since the dispute between the parties have
been amicably settled, I am of the considered view
that the appeal could be disposed off in terms of the
compromise. Accordingly, the compromise petition
dated 07.01.2022 filed by the parties to the appeal is
taken on record. The Regular First Appeal is disposed
off in terms of the compromise petition.
The registry is directed to draw decree in
accordance with the terms of the compromise
petition.
In view of disposal of appeal, I.A.No.2/2020 will
not survive for consideration.
SD/-
JUDGE
CLK
