Quashed

Smt Sudha Mangesh Nadgouda v. Smt Managala Vishwanath Nadgouda

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2018RSA/1889/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of an appeal by accepting a compromise petition filed by appellants and respondents. The parties admitted voluntary agreement where appellants accepted a sale deed and respondents paid Rs. 3 lakhs each, without any force or threat.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of by accepting the compromise petition; respondents to pay Rs. 3 lakhs each.

Smt Sudha Mangesh Nadgouda Vs Smt Managala Vishwanath… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

¶5

R.S.A.No.1889/2006 (PAR.)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT SUDHA MANGESH NADGOUDA, (DIED ON 23.04.2009 RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE LR’S V.C.O. DATED 03.08.2009).

¶8

SMT.PUSHPA PRABHAKAR BICCHU, AGE:MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O GONDHALI GALLI, BELGAUM.

¶9

SMT.NIRMALA ARUNRAO KHASNIS, AGE:MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O.432, SADASHIVPETH, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA.

¶10

... APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI G.B.SHASTRY AND SRI R.M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATES)

¶12

A N D :

¶13

SMT MANAGALA VISHWANATH NADGOUDA, AGE MAJOR, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O GADHIHGLAJ, DIST:KOLHAPUR, ADDRESS FOR SERVICE CTS NO.3453/A, GONDHALI GALLI, BELGAUM. SMT PUSHPA PRABHAKAR BICCHU SMT.NIRMALA ARUNRAO KHASNIS ARE TRANSPOSED AS APPELLANTS 2 AND 3.

¶14

SRI SURAJMAL, S/O CHANDULAJI KHODA @ PORWAL,

¶15

¶16

AGE:57 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O 3453/B, SAMADEVI GALLI, BELGAUM.

¶17

SRI BHARAT S/O HIMMATMAL SHAH, AGE:44 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O CTS No.4867/29/15, SAMPIGE ROAD, V.V.NAGAR, BELGAUM.

¶18

RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 18.07.2012.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI SRINAND A.PACHCHAPURE, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3, SRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1)

¶21

THIS RSA FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT.15.04.2006 PASSED IN R.A.NO.194/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) BELGAUM, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT.17.08.1998 PASSED IN O.S.NO.948/89 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) BELGAUM.

¶22

THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the parties have

¶25

filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC reporting the compromise.

¶26

Smt.Nirmala Arunrao Khasnis is present before the Court. Along with the compromise petition, they

¶27

have also filed Power of Attorney executed by first

¶28

¶29

appellant Smt.Pushpa Prabhakar Bicchu. She also submits that she is also representing appellant No.1. Respondents 2 and 3 are also present before the Court. When this Court questioned appellants 1 and 2 and respondents 2 and 3 about the compromise entered into, they admitted the contents of the compromise. They further submit that they have entered into compromise without any force or threat and they have voluntarily agreed to the said terms and conditions.

¶30

In the said compromise, appellants have agreed to accept that the sale deed executed by the deceased/respondent No.1 in respect of property bearing CTS 3453/A measuring 208.15 sq. mts. situated at Gondhali Galli of Belagavi as per Schedule ‘A’, item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. In the said compromise, it has also been agreed that appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the absolute owners and are in possession of the remaining suit schedule properties. It

¶31

¶32

is also further stated in the said compromise that the respondents 2 and 3 have agreed to pay Rs.3 lakhs each to appellants 1 and 2. Respondents 2 and 3 who are present before the Court have submitted the demand draft drawn on Canara Bank, Main Branch, Belagavi, bearing Nos.373224 and 373225 dated 13.11.2018 in favour of appellants 1 and 2. Appellant No.2 acknowledges the receipt of the said demand draft for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs each. By virtue of the said compromise, appellant No.2 on behalf of herself and on behalf of appellant No.1 accepts the sale deed dated 26.12.2009 in favour of respondents 2 and 3 and she also further admits that respondents 2 and 3 are the absolute owners of the property shown in the said registered sale deed dated 26.12.2009 and they have no right, title or interest over the property purchased by them. Since already respondent No.1 has died and appellant No.2 and 3 are the legal representatives, there is no impediment to accept the compromise. The said

¶33

¶34

compromise petition has been signed by appellants 1 and 2 and respondents 2 and 3 and also by their respective counsel and they have also filed affidavits of appellants 1 and 2 and respondents 2 and 3.

¶35

The said compromise petition is accepted and the said appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

¶36

The registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly, if necessary fees is paid.

¶37

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶38

Jm/-

Smt Sudha Mangesh Nadgouda v. Smt Managala Vishwanath Nadgouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sudha Mangesh Nadgouda v. Smt Managala Vishwanath Nadgouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Rajesh Vs Smt. Sneha

The Managing Director Vs Kiran Kumar H.B

Smt Kavita @ Latha W/O T. Virupaksha Reddi Vs T. Virupaksha Reddi

Sushila @ Fakiravva W/O Gurappa Yaddoni, Vs Ningappa S/O Channabasappa Kankanameli

Fakkirappa S/O Ningappa Chulaki Vs Dayanand S/O Anantrao Patil

Smt. P.G. Gouri W/O Laxman Mullatti Vs Dr. Laxman Channappa Mullatti