Karnataka High Court
Sri Hassan Moosa vs Sri Dawood Moosa on 8 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:870
RFA No. 1928 of 2013
C/W RFA No. 1930 of 2013
RFA No. 1946 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1928 OF 2013 (PAR)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1930 OF 2013 (PAR)
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1946 OF 2013 (PAR)
IN R.F.A NO. 1928 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
AHMED MOOSA,
S/O LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/A NO.23, W.H. HANUMANTHAPPA ROAD,
ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE -42.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI 1. SRI DAWOOD MOOSA,
BN
Location: High
S/O LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
Court of AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
Karnataka
R/A NO.36, III CROSS,
AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD,
ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE- 42.
2. HASHIM MOOSA,
S/O LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/A NO.32/5, AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD,
ULSOOR, BANGALORE- 42.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:870
RFA No. 1928 of 2013
C/W RFA No. 1930 of 2013
RFA No. 1946 of 2013
3. SRI JAFFER MOOSA,
S/O LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/A NO.7, W.H. HANUMANTHAPPA LAYOUT,
ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-42.
4. SRI HUSSAIN MOOSA,
S/O LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/A NO.37/23, YELLAPPA CHETTY
LAYOUT, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-42.
5. SRI HASSAN MOOSA,
S/O LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/A NO.37/4, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
CROSS, JAYARAMDAS LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-52.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANMUKAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1;
SRI SARAVANA.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI SIDDHARTH H.M, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R4 SERVED;
SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 7.9.2013 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.11265/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION. REJECTING THE SUIT FOR MESNE PROFITS.
IN R.F.A NO. 1930 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
SRI JAFFER MOOSA,
S/O. LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.7, W H HANUMANTHAPPA LAYOUT,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:870
RFA No. 1928 of 2013
C/W RFA No. 1930 of 2013
RFA No. 1946 of 2013
ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 042.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SIDDHARTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI DAWOOD MOOSA,
S/O. LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO.36, III CROSS,
AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD,
ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 042.
2. SRI HASHIM MOOSA,
S/O. LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O NO.32/5, AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD,
ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042.
3. SRI HUSSAIN MOOSA,
S/O. LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O NO.37/23, YELLAPPA CHETTY LAYOUT,
ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042.
4. SRI AHMED MOOSA,
S/O. LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O NO. 23, W.H.HANUMANTHAPPA ROAD,
ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042.
5. SRI HASSAN MOOSA,
S/O. LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O NO.23, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
CROSS, JAYARAMDAS LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 052.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANMUKAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1;
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:870
RFA No. 1928 of 2013
C/W RFA No. 1930 of 2013
RFA No. 1946 of 2013
SRI SARAVANA.S, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-3 SERVED;
SRI S.V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W O-41(1) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.09.2013
PASSED IN O.S.11265/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII-ADDL.
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT
FOR PARTITION AND POSSESSION.
IN R.F.A NO. 1946 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
SRI HASSAN MOOSA,
S/O LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT "TAIYAB", NO.37/4,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD CROSS,
JAYARAMDAS ROAD,
BANGALORE-52.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI DAWOOD MOOSA,
S/O LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO.36, III CROSS,
AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD,
ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042.
2. SRI HASHIM MOOSA,
S/O LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT 32/5, AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD,
ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 042.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:870
RFA No. 1928 of 2013
C/W RFA No. 1930 of 2013
RFA No. 1946 of 2013
3. SRI JAFFAR MOOSA,
S/O LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.7, W H HANUMANTHAPPA
LAYOUT, ULSOOR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 042.
4. HUSSAIN MOSSA,
S/O LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.37/4,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD CROSS,
JAYARAMDAS LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 052.
5. AHMED MOOSA,
S/O LATE MOOSA DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.23, W H HANUMANTHAPPA
ROAD, ULSOOR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 042.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1;
SRI SARAVANA.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI SIDDHARTH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI S.M IRBAZ, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI S.V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.09.2013 PASSED IN
O.S.11265/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION AND POSSESSION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:870
RFA No. 1928 of 2013
C/W RFA No. 1930 of 2013
RFA No. 1946 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
the learned counsel appearing for respondents, except
respondent No.2 are present.
2. It is submitted that the parties have entered
into a compromise and have also executed a Partition-
cum- Family Settlement deed dated 20-12-2017. It being
a registered Partition-cum-Family Settlement deed, the
parties had felt that it may not be a necessary to report
compromise to the Court. Now they have felt that
compromise should also be recorded by this Court, and
hence, they appeared before the Court and filed a
Compromise Petition under order 23 Rule 3 CPC.
3. Apart from the Partition- cum- Family
Settlement deed, they have also entered into two Deeds of
Confirmation dated 20-12-2017 which are also produced
along with the Compromise Petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:870
4. The appellant- Hassan Moosa, respondent No.1-
Dawood Moosa, respondent No.3- Jaffar Moosa,
respondent No.5-Ahmed Moosa are present before the
Court. Respondent No.4- Hussain Moosa is not available
before this Court and he is represented by his counsel Sri.
S.M.Irbaz. Similarly, respondent No.2-Hashim Moosa is
not available and he is represented by his counsel Sri
Saravana.
5. The parties to the compromise petition and the
learned counsels appearing for them submit that the
compromise petition may be accepted and all the appeals
arising out of the judgment in OS No.1265/2006 dated
7-9-2013 be disposed off in terms of the Compromise
Petition and the Partition- cum- Family Settlement Deed
and also the Deeds of Confirmation.
6. The records reveal that a suit for partition was
filed by the plaintiff and the suit came to be decreed in
part. The plaintiff was declared to be having 1/6th share
NC: 2024:KHC:870
in the suit schedule properties and also two other
properties as per the decree.
7. Now the parties to the suit have compromised
the matter and the learned counsels appearing for
respondent Nos. 2 and 4 submit that their parties have
also affixed their signature on the Compromise Petition as
well as on the Partition-cum- Family Settlement Deed
executed and registered before the Sub Registrar.
8. On perusal of the Compromise Petition and
Partition-cum-Family Settlement deed, it is seen that the
settlement reached between the parties is just, proper
and reasonable and also the plaintiff- Dawood Moosa, who
is present before this Court submit that he has received
his share in the suit schedule properties by way of money
through cheque to the extent of two crores in the year
2017.
9. In that view of the matter, these appeals do not
survive for further consideration. Hence, the appeals are
NC: 2024:KHC:870
allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court is set aside and the suit is disposed off in
terms of the Compromise Petition.
10. The partition-cum Family Settlement Deed and
the Deeds of Confirmation shall also be the part of the
Compromise Decree.
Any original documents produced along with IA
No.1/2023 is ordered to be returned to the appellant.
In view of the disposal of the main appeals, the
pending IAs, if any in all the appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
tsn*
