Allowed

Dhanaraj, S/O. Madanraj Kudumi, v. Lachhmansingh, S/O. Rur Singh

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2019RSA/100511/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC by accepting a compromise deed between the appellant and respondents. The court passed a decree in terms of the settlement, ordering payment of Rs. 3 lakhs via cheque, granted refund of court fees, and noted liability adjustments regarding absent respondents.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in terms of compromise; respondents to pay Rs. 3 lakhs; refund of court fee granted under Section 66(c).

Dhanaraj, S/O. Madanraj Kudumi, Vs Lachhmansingh… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

R.S.A. NO.100511/2017 (MON)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DHANARAJ, S/O. MADANRAJ KUDUMI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PEON IN RAILWAY EMPLOYEE SANGH, R/O: H.NO. 17/2, BUDDISTHA PLOT, ARALIKATTI ONI, MANTOOR ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 023, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE SRI.S.S.BETURMATH, SRI.F.R.GALAGANATH, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

LACHHMANSINGH, S/O. RUR SINGH, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: RTD. SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RPF, R/O: C/O. ASHIRWAD S.A. FARNADISH, HOUSE NO. 13/A, NEAR SHANTI NAGAR, CHURCH MANAVEER COLONY, BENGERI, HUBBALLI-580 023, DIST.:DHARWAD. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶13

1(A) SMT.SURABHI SINGH W/O LATE LACHHAMAN SINGH AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶14

¶15

R/O M-24, NIRMAL PURI, 2^ND FLOOR, OLD DOUBLE STORY, LAJAPAT NAGAR-IV, LAJAPAT NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 024.

¶16

1(B) SMT.HARPREET SINGH D/O LATE LACHHAMAN SINGH, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O M-24, NIRMAL PURI, 2^ND FLOOR, OLD DOUBLE STORY, LAJAPAT NAGAR-IV, LAJAPAT NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 024.

¶17

1(C) LAKHDEEP SINGH S/O LATE LACHHAMAN SINGH, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O M-24, NIRMAL PURI, 2^ND FLOOR, OLD DOUBLE STORY, LAJAPAT NAGAR-IV, LAJAPAT NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 024.

¶18

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI 580023, DIST.:DHARWAD.

¶19

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, NEW G.M. BUILDING, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI 580023, DIST. DHARWAD. (RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 13.09.2019) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.N.BADIGER, ADVOCATE AND SRI.D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R1(A TO C), R2 & R3 ARE DELETED V/O DATED 13.09.2019)

¶20

¶21

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.04.2017 PASSED IN R.A.ANO.167/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.09.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.242/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS COURT, HUBBALLI DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶22

THIS RSA COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A. THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The suit was filed seeking for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from defendant No.1 with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization. It is stated that the said amount was lent by way of hand loan to defendant No.1. After trial, the said suit came to be dismissed on 28.09.2016. Appeal in R.A.No.167/2016 which came to be filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.242/2015 came to be dismissed by order dated 19.04.2017. Against the said order dismissing the regular appeal, the present second appeal has been filed.

¶25

¶26

2. During the pendency of the proceedings the

¶27

parties have settled the dispute and a compromise petition is filed. The appellant is present in person and so also the legal representatives of defendant No.1 i.e. the wife (respondent No.1(a)) and the son (respondent No.1(c)) are present. Copy of power of attorney attested by respondent No.1(c) is produced which authorizes respondent No.1(b) to be represented by respondent No.1(c). The terms of the compromise have been explained to the parties. The compromise as contained in the petition is lawful.

¶28

In terms of the settlement as reflected in the compromise it is agreed that respondents No.1(a) to 1(c) would pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the appellant who is the plaintiff towards full and final settlement towards the appellant’s claim. The repayment is envisaged by way of honoring of a cheque bearing No.491163 drawn on Canara Bank, Hubballi. It is further stipulated that

¶29

¶30

the cheque would be presented for payment after releasing of the benefits that defendant No.1 was entitled to by his employer. It is further stipulated that respondents No.1(a) to 1(c) are also at liberty to pay the above mentioned sum of Rs.3 lakhs within three days from the date of receipt of benefits that the deceased was entitled to from the employer.

¶31

It is also made clear that in the event cheque is to be presented for realization, the cheque would be presented at the intimation of respondents No.1(a) to 1(c). Default clause is contained in paragraph 5 of the compromise petition. In terms of the compromise and accepting the said compromise petition, the suit is decreed in terms of the compromise. Noting that the respondent No.1(b) is not present and is represented through a decree holder, it is made clear that the liability of respondent No.1(b) would be made good by respondent No.1(c) in the event respondent No.1(b) does

¶32

¶33

not co-operate for the discharge of obligation as envisaged in the compromise petition. Accordingly, office to draw decree in terms of the compromise and observations made above.

¶34

In light of the disposal of the appeal by way of compromise entered into between the parties, there will be refund of court fee in accordance with Section 66(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

¶35

The parties who are present to append their signature in the order sheet and to be identified by the counsel on record. Necessary copy of identity card to be furnished.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Dhanaraj, S/O. Madanraj Kudumi, v. Lachhmansingh, S/O. Rur Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanaraj, S/O. Madanraj Kudumi, v. Lachhmansingh, S/O. Rur Singh

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

Hari S/O Mallappa Naik Vs Geeta Alias Laxmibai Appaji Naik

Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit Vs State Bank of India

Pathan Tours and Travels Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Laxmawwa W/O Basavaraj Kuri Vs Smt. Kalawwa W/O Yallappa Kuri

Dhanaraj, S/O. Madanraj Kudumi, Vs Lachhmansingh, S/O. Rur Singh

Ramsingh, S/O. Baddu Rathod, Vs Lachhmansingh, S/O. Rur Singh