Smt. Sujata W/O Mahadev Pujari vs Veerabhadra S/O Shrishail Wali
2022 Latest Caselaw 9834 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100131 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SMT. SUJATA W/O MAHADEV PUJARI
AGE. 60 YEARS,
OCCU. AGRIL.
R/O. KOUJALAGI,
TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI 590001
                                             ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

VEERABHADRA S/O SHRISHAIL WALI
AGE. 33 YEARS,
OCCU. AGRIL.
R/O. SUNDHOLI,
TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591310.
                                           ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI C S SHETTAR, ADVOCATE)

      RFA FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.07.2020 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.84/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK,
DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF
CONTRACT AND POSSESSION.
                                   2




     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON                       FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED                        THE
FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the defendant in OS.No.84 of 2018

challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2020,

decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

During the pendency of the appeal, parties to the appeal

have settled the matter amicably, accordingly, they filed

compromise petition today. Parties are present before the Court

and they are identified by their respective counsel appearing in

the appeal. Parties submitted that the compromise has been

entered into on their free volition and there is no force by any

other person. Both the parties are agreed to the terms and

conditions referred to in the paragraph 3 of the compromise

petition. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of in terms of the

compromise petition filed by the parties. In view of the same,

judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in OS NO. 84 of

2018 is modified and the Registry is directed to draw the decree

in terms of the compromise petition. In view of the fact that, the

parties have settled the lis by way of compromise petition, the

appellant herein is entitled for the refund of admissible court fee

in terms of provisions contained under the Karnataka Court Fees

and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB