Sri. Ali Kutty Hussain Beary vs Smt. Aparna Shenoy
2024 Latest Caselaw 4692 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Ali Kutty Hussain Beary vs Smt. Aparna Shenoy on 15 February, 2024

Author: Krishna S Dixit

Bench: Krishna S Dixit

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:6400-DB
                                                           RFA No. 2058 of 2017




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                            PRESENT
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
                                              AND
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                         REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2058 OF 2017 (PAR)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI. ALI KUTTY HUSSAIN BEARY,
                         S/O SRI. HUSSAIN BEARY,
                         AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                         R/AT AYSHA MANZIL,
                         IRSHAD ROAD, UDYAWAR POST,
                         MANJESHWARA, KERALA - 671 320.

                   2.    SRI. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM M.,
                         S/O LATE IBRAHIM HAJI,
                         AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                         R/AT BAITHUL SALAMATH,
                         PAVOOR COMPOUND,
                         B.T.ROAD, UPPALA GATE,
Digitally signed         P.O.UPPALA, KASARGOD - 671 322.
by SHARADA                                                        ...APPELLANTS
VANI B
                   (BY SRI. B.L. ACHARYA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
Location:
HIGH COURT             SRI. KISHOR B.K., ADVOCATE)
OF
KARNATAKA          AND:

                   1.    SMT. APARNA SHENOY,
                         W/O SRI. HARISH SHENOY,
                         AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                         R/AT SAMARPAN RESIDENCE,
                         FLAT NO.303, AMAR ALVA ROAD,
                         MANGALURU - 575 001.

                   2.    SRI. M. VAIKUNTA BHAKTA,
                         S/O LATE LAXMAN VAIKUNTA BHAKTA,
                           -2-
                                    NC: 2024:KHC:6400-DB
                                    RFA No. 2058 of 2017




     AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
     R/AT BHAKTA MUTT, POST MANJESHWAR,
     KERALA STATE - 671 320.

3.   SRI. LAXMAN BHAKTA,
     S/O SRI. VAIKUNTA BHAKTA,
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
     R/AT BHAKTA MUTT, POST MANJESHWAR,
     KERALA STATE - 671 320.

4.   SRI. M. JAYACHANDRA BHAGAT @ M.J.BHAGAT,
     S/O LATE LAXMAN VAIKUNTA BHAKTA,
     AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
     R/AT ANNAPOORNA BEHIND URVA MARKET,
     MANGALURU - 575 006.

5.   DR. ANJANA HEGDE W/O DR. PRATAP HEGDE,
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
     R/AT 6/4A, TALEGALA STREET,
     UNENDRERRA, 2526, NSW, AUSTRALIA.

6.   SRI. MOHAMMED THAHIR HUSSAIN,
     S/O LATE MOHAMMED YAKOOB SAHEB,
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
     R/AT II-HAM BAGH, KABETTU CROSS ROAD,
     KARKALA - 574 104
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. SUDHAKAR PAI., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    R2 TO R6 IS DELETED V/C/O DATED:15.02.2024)

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE
1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
11.07.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.35/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU D.K,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION AND ETC.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
KRISHNA S DIXIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                        -3-
                                                     NC: 2024:KHC:6400-DB
                                                     RFA No. 2058 of 2017




                                 JUDGMENT

The compromise petition is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is signed by the

appellants and the respondent who has been remained in the

fray after deleting other respondents from arraignment. Parties

are present online and they are identified by their respective

counsel.

The compromise Petition reads as under:

"Parties to the above appeal respectfully submit as follows:

1. The parties to the above appeal, at the intervention of the well-wishers, have settled their disputes amicably by entering into a compromise relating to all the disputes and have agreed to the following terms and conditions.

2. The Respondent/Plaintiff has decided to withdraw the Suit.

3. Further the Respondent/Plaintiff accepts the validity of the sale deed dated 05.09.2012 executed by Defendants No.1 and 3 in favour of the Appellants.

4. The parties therefore pray that the Judgment and Decree under appeal dated 11.07.2017 passed in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff by the Court of 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K., in O.S.No.35/2014 may be set aside and the Suit

NC: 2024:KHC:6400-DB

be dismissed as settled out of Court without any order as to costs."

2. Learned Advocates appearing for the parties submit

that this appeal be disposed of in terms of compromise petition

and that eventually the impugned judgment & decree of the

Court below be set at naught. A perusal of the compromise

petition generates confidence in the mind of Court as to its

being bonafide. Apparently, there is no impediment of law or

facts for recording the compromise arrived at between the

parties.

In view of the above, this appeal is disposed off; in terms

of compromise. The impugned judgment and decree of the

Court below is set at naught.

Registry to draw decree in terms of compromise, subject

to all just exceptions.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE SMJ