Karnataka High Court
Mohd Sahib Ansari S/O Mohd ... vs Refeeqa Begum W/O Khaleel Hussain on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
RSA No.1817/2006
BETWEEN:
Mohd. Sahib Ansari
S/o Md. Karimoddin Ansari,
Deceased through LRs.
1) Sufiya Begum W/o Md. Sahib Ansari,
Age: 55 years, Occ: Household,
2) Nayum Ansari S/o Md. Sahib Ansari,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business,
3) Qayyum Ansari S/o Md. Sahib Ansari,
Age: 34 years, Occ: Business,
Since deceased by LRs.
3(a) Smt. Nuzzat W/o Late Qayyum Ansari,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Household,
3(b) Zoya D/o Late Qayyum Ansari,
Age: 09 years, Occ: Minor,
3(c) Nabiya Fatima D/o Late Qayyum Ansari,
Age: 07 years, Minor,
The LR No: 3(b) & 3(c) are minors
U/g of their natural mother
2
Smt. Nuzzat W/o Late Qayyum Ansari,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Household,
All R/o Old Ansari Mohalla, Aland,
Dist: Kalaburagi.
4) Atiya Begum W/o Amir Ansari,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Household,
5) Malika Begum W/o Masloddin Ansari,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Household,
6) Tofeeq Ansari S/o Md. Sahib Ansari,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Business,
7) Ahmed Ansari S/o Md. Sahib Ansari,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Auto Driver,
8) Adil Ansari S/o Md. Sahib Ansari,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Business,
All R/o 4-2-20, Old E-5.1.95 (New),
Old Ansari Mohalla, Aland,
Dist: Kalaburagi.
... Appellants
(By Smt. Hema L.K., Advocate)
AND:
1) Rafeeqa Begum W/o Khaleel Hussain,
Age: 55 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Ansari Mohalla, Aland,
Dist: Gulbarga.
2) Mehrunnisa Begum
Deceased through LRs.
3
a) Shaheen Ansari S/o Zakaria Ansari,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Begum Bazar, Baicon Wadi,
Hyderabad (A.P).
b) Samiuddin Ansari S/o Zakaria Ansari,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Private Service,
c) Qayamuddin Ansari S/o Zakaria Ansari,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Private Service,
R/o Begum Bazar, Baicon Wadi,
Hyderabad (A.P).
3) Begum W/o Gulam Kokalgaon,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Kokalgaon, Tq: Nilanga,
Dist: Osmanabad.
1) Himayat S/o Gulam Kokalgaon,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Service,
2) Munni Begum S/o Gulam Kokalgaon,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Household,
3) Ayub Patthan S/o Gulam Kokalgaon,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Pvt. Service,
4) Jani Patthan S/o Gulam Kokalgaon,
Age: 28 years,
5) Afsar S/o Gulam Kokalgaon,
Age: 26 years, Occ: Pvt. Service,
All R/o Kokalgaon, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist: Latur.
4) Waheed Ansari S/o Moinuddin Ansari,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee,
R/o Aland, Tq. Aland, Dist. Gulbarga.
4
5) Naheed Ansari S/o Moinuddin Ansari,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Electrician,
R/o Aland, Tq. Aland, Dist. Gulbarga.
6) Kareemuddin Ansari S/o Moinuddin Ansari,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Driver,
R/o Aland, Tq. Aland, Dist. Gulbarga.
7) Zakiya Begum W/op Khambar Ansari,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Aland, Tq. Aland, Dist. Gulbarga.
8) Raziya Begum W/o Moinuddin Ansari,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Aland, Tq. Aland, Dist. Gulbarga.
9) Tarabee W/o Moinuddin Ansari,
Age: 65 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Aland, Tq. Aland, Dist. Gulbarga.
9a) Raziya D/o Moinuddin Ansari,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Household,
9b) Waheed Ansari D/o Moinuddin Ansari,
Age: 38 years,
9c) Nayeed Ansari D/o Moinuddin Ansari,
Age: 35 years,
9d) Zakiya D/o Moinuddin Ansari,
Age: 32 years,
9e) Kareemuddin Ansari
S/o Moinuddin Ansari,
Age: 30 years,
All R/o Old Ansari Mohalla, Darga Road,
Aland, Dist: Gulbarga.
5
10) Khambar Ansari S/o Moinuddin Ansari,
Age: 45 years, Occ: Pvt. Service,
R/o Ansari Mohalla, Aland, Tq: Aland,
Dist: Gulbarga.
... Respondents
(Sri Mohd. Khadar Khan, Advocate for R2 (a) to (c),
R3 (2) to (5) & R10;
Sri. Vinayak Apte, Advocate for R7, R8 & R9 (a) to (e)
(R4 to 8 and LR No.R9 (a to e) are one & same);
V/O Dtd. 04.03.2021 appeal against R1 stands abated;
V/O Dtd. 27.06.2022 appeal against R3(1) dismissed as
not pressed)
This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section
100 of CPC, praying to allow the appeal by setting and the
judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005 passed in
R.A.No.11/1998 by the learned III Additional District
Judge, Gulbarga, partly modifying and partly confirming
the judgment and decree dated 15.01.1998 passed in
O.S.No.215/1989 by the learned Additional Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.) at Gulbarga.
This RSA coming on for final hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellants has filed a
memo stating that the appeal against respondent No.3(1)
- Himayat S/o Gulam Kokalgaon is not pressed, as he is
not heard for long period.
2. The memo is placed on record.
3. In view of the memo, the appeal as against
respondent No.3(1) - Himayat S/o Gulam Kokalgaon
stands dismissed as not pressed.
4. Sri Vinayak Apte, Advocate has filed power for
respondent Nos.7, 8 and 9 (a) and (b) along with the
original Special Power of Attorney.
5. Sri Mohd. Khadar Khan, Advocate has filed
power for respondent Nos.2 (a) to (c), 3 (2) to (5) and 10
along with original Special Power of Attorney.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has also
filed an application in I.A.1/2022 under Order XXXII Rule 7
of CPC, seeking permission to compromise the matter on
behalf of minor appellant Nos.3(b) and 3(c). The minor
guardian appellant No.3(a) has filed an affidavit stating
that the compromise is in the interest of the minors.
Further, the learned counsel for the appellants has filed a
certificate stating that the compromise is in the interest of
the minors. Hence, appellant No.3(a) is permitted to
compromise the matter on behalf of minor appellant
Nos.3(b) and 3(c). Accordingly, I.A.1/2022 is allowed.
7. Appellant Nos.1, 2, 3(a) and 4 to 8 are
present. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 and 10 are also present.
Respondent No.10 is the power of attorney of other
respondents and he has also produced the power of
attorneys. The parties have submitted a joint compromise
petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, reporting
settlement among themselves. The parties submit that by
the intervention of the elders of the village, they have
settled the dispute among themselves without any threat
or coercion. The contents of the compromise petition are
read over and explained to the parties in Hindi and
Kannada language known to them in the presence of their
respective counsels and they admit the contents to be true
and correct.
8. I am satisfied that the parties have settled the
dispute amicably without any threat or coercion. Further,
the compromise is in the interest of the parties and not
against the settled principles of law. Hence, the
compromise petition is accepted.
9. The appeal is allowed in terms of the
compromise petition by modifying the judgment and
decree of the Courts below. However, it is made clear that
this compromise will not bind respondent No.3(1), against
whom the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
10. Draw a decree in terms of the compromise
petition and it shall be part of the compromise decree.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
