Karnataka High Court
Mr. Abdulrahman vs Sri. Ishtiyaq Ahmed on 8 November, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45396
RFA No. 2133 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2133 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ABDULRAHMAN
SON OF ISHTIYAQ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 2ND FLOOR,
NO.63, 5TH MAIN,
BESIDES INDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL,
KANAKA NAGAR,
J. P. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 078.
2. SRI. MOHAMMED ZIKRIYA
SON OF ISHTIYAQ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 1ST FLOOR,
Digitally NO.63, 5TH MAIN,
signed by
VEDAVATHI BESIDES INDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL,
AK KANAKA NAGAR,
Location: J. P. NAGAR POST,
High Court
of Karnataka BENGALURU-560 078.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. ISHTIYAQ AHMED
SON OF LATE BASHEER AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45396
RFA No. 2133 of 2018
2. SMT. MUMTAZ BEGUM
WIFE OF MR. ISHTIYAQ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
BOTH RESIDING AT
GROUND FLOOR, NO.63, 5TH MAIN,
BESIDES INDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL,
KANAKA NAGAR,
J. P. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HIMA KIRAN S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF
CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
19.11.2018 PASSED ON ISSUE NO.5 IN OS.NO.25428/17 ON
THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU, NEGATIVELY ANSWERING
ISSUE NO.5 AND DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by appellants / plaintiffs for setting
aside the judgment and decree passed by the XXVIII Additional
City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.25428/2017 dated
19.11.2018 for having dismissed the suit.
2. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the
respondents are the defendants before the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:45396
3. During the pendency of the appeal, both appellant
Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through
their counsel and filed joint compromise petition under Order
XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC and seeking
permission of the Court to compromise the dispute.
4. As per the terms of the compromise, the suit
schedule property is said to be gifted by respondent No.1 to the
respondent No.2, who is said to be the step mother of plaintiffs
and they are also having two daughters. The respondent No.1
is said to be borrowed loan of Rs.5,50,000/- for the purpose of
purchasing gold ornaments and for performing the marriage of
his daughter. Therefore, it was decided by the parties to sell
the suit schedule property to third person and out of the sale
process they are going to share equally i.e., one share for each
plaintiffs and another one share each by respondent Nos.1 and
2 and two daughters each one share. Totally they are agreed to
share equally by dividing to Six shares by Six persons.
5. In view of the compromise between the parties, the
compromise is accepted and is permitted to compromise the
case.
NC: 2024:KHC:45396
6. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2018 is allowed.
7. In view of the compromise, the appeal is
disposed of.
8. Draw decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
LDC
