Allowed

Sri. Dhareppa S/O. Basappa Mudhol v. M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2020RFA/100365/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a specific performance suit was disposed of by allowing a compromise settlement. The court approved the agreement to execute sale deeds and payment of consideration, ordering a sum to be secured via fixed deposit to protect the minor respondent's interest until majority.

What did the court decide?

A decree was drawn based on the compromise to execute sale deeds, pay consideration with twenty lakhs secured in a fixed deposit for the minor, and withdraw a related suit.

Sri. Dhareppa S/O. Basappa Mudhol Vs M/S. Dalmia… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN

¶7

R.F.A.NO.100365/2018 (SP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI DHAREPPA S/O BASAPPA MUDHOL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O YADAWAD VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI ARAVIND D.KULKARNI ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/S DALMIA CEMENT,

¶14

(BHARAT) LTD., HAVING ITS

¶15

REGISTERED OFFICE AT DALMIAPURAM,

¶16

PIN: 621 151, TRICHIRAPALLI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

¶17

SRI MOMMARAJU ADINARAYANA,

¶18

M/S DALMIA CEMENT,

¶19

VENTURES LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 11^TH FLOOR, HANSALAYA BUILDING, 15-BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001,

¶20

: 2 :

¶21

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI BOMMARAJU ADINARAYANA.

¶22

KUMAR BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA S/O DHAREPPA MUDHOL, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.NAGAVVA W/O DHAREPPA, MUDHOL, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI NOW AT HUNSHYAL. P.T., TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶23

STM.NAGAVVA W/O DHAREPPA MUDHOL, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI, NOW AT HUNSYAL. P.G., TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SHRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI ADVOCATE FOR R.1 & 2 : SHRI SHRIDHAR HIREMATH ADVOCATE FOR R.3 & 4)

¶26

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.88/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK.

¶27

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT THIS DAY, B.A.PATIL, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Sri Dhareppa son of Basappa Mudhol,

¶30

defendant-appellant is present before this Court along with his counsel.

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

Shri Gourish, Authorized Signatory of

¶33

M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.-plaintiff Nos.1 & 2-respondent Nos.1 & 2 is present along with his counsel.

¶34

Today, they have filed an application

¶35

under Order 23 Rule 3 read with section 151 of

¶36

CPC for having amicably settled the matter and compromised as stated therein.

¶37

In the said compromise, it has been stated that the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract in

¶38

O.S.No.88/2011 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak and in terms of the compromise, the appellant and respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall execute a sale deed of the suit schedule property in favour of respondent No.1 as per the agreement of sale dated 06.11.2007

¶39

: 4 :

¶40

and supplementary agreements dated 10.04.2008, 11.10.2008 and 05.08.2009 at the

¶41

cost and expenses of the respondents before the Sub-Registrar’s office will be made by

¶42

respondent No.1.

¶43

The appellant admits the receipt of part consideration of Rs.15,97,500/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Ninety-Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only) through the cheque drawn on State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Gokak.

¶44

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have agreed to pay additional amount of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakh Only) at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed towards loss of crops and expenses incurred towards litigation as one time full and final settlement of all the disputes.

¶45

: 5 :

¶46

Plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also agreed to accept the same and respondent Nos.1 has agreed to pay an

¶47

additional amount on the date of sale deed. The sale deed shall be executed by the appellant and respondent Nos.3 and 4 within one month from today.

¶48

It is further agreed that, if the sale

¶49

deed is not executed as agreed, the respondent No.1 is entitled to execution of the sale deed through process of the Court and the plaintiff and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not entitled to an additional amount of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakh Only).

¶50

It is further agreed that the appellant

¶51

and respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall deliver the actual possession of the suit schedule property

¶52

: 6 :

¶53

measuring 37 guntas forming part of

¶54

R.S.No.322/1 assessed at Rs.00.31 and another land measuring 4 acres forming part of R.S.No.324/1 assessed at Rs.4.00 of Yadwad village, Koujalgi Hobli, Gokak Taluka, Belagavi District.

¶55

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have agreed to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.220/2019 pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak.

¶56

It is further agreed, when the Court has

¶57

put the question that, as respondent No.3 is minor what arrangements has been made to protect the interest of respondent No.3. So in that light, the parties who are present before the Court agreed to keep an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only) in

¶58

: 7 :

¶59

fixed deposit in any nationalized bank in favour of respondent NO.3 till he attains the age of majority.

¶60

I.A.No.3/2020 has been filed seeking permission to compromise on behalf of respondent No.3 who is the minor. It is also accompanied with an affidavit. They have also filed a certificate as contemplated under Order 32 Rule 7 (1-A) of CPC that respondent No.4 is going to protect the interest and safeguard future career of respondent No.3. The said certificate filed by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 is placed on record.

¶61

When the appellant, respondent No.4 and even respondent No.1 have agreed to deposit Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only) in the name of respondent No.3, who is

¶62

: 8 :

¶63

minor, then under such circumstances, we feel that if the said amount is kept in fixed deposit it will be beneficial to respondent No.3 and to the said effect, respondent No.4 has also filed an application and affidavit. Learned counsel has also issued the certificate to that effect.

¶64

Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstance, we are of the opinion that there is no impediment to allow the compromise.

¶65

Respondent No.1 is hereby directed while paying Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakh Only) he has to keep an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) in the name of respondent No.3-Basavaraj @ Basappa son of Dhareppa Mudhol in any nationalized Bank and he has to file the copy of the fixed deposit

¶66

: 9 :

¶67

certificate before this Court, so as to ensure that he has taken care and interest of the minor respondent No.3 boy and the remaining amount has to be paid to the appellant-defendant immediately.

¶68

The said compromise petition has been singed by appellant-defendant, so also authorized signatory of respondent Nos.1 & 2 and respondent No.4 on her own behalf and on behalf of minor respondent No.3 and the same has been endorsed by learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶69

Respondent No.4 is permitted to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on

¶70

amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh

¶71

: 10 :

¶72

Only) deposited in the name of respondent No.3 for his benefit.

¶73

The said compromise application is placed on record and in terms of the

¶74

compromise, the appeal is disposed of.

¶75

Registry is directed to refund the court fee in accordance with law on proper identification and acknowledgement.

¶76

Draw decree accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

EM/-

Sri. Dhareppa S/O. Basappa Mudhol v. M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Dhareppa S/O. Basappa Mudhol v. M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.

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

Kariyappa Bhimappa Menasindi Vs Manjunath Kariyappa Mensaindi

Kumar Rakshak S/O. Rajendra Vs Shashidhar Hanumanth Zendennavar

Sri.Parasuram Vs Sri.Shirajsab

Smt.Sudha W/O Madhukar Jamakhandi Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Nagaraj S/O Lingappa Vs State of Karnataka

Minor Muttappa Vs Vyshnavi, Anand Project Private Ltd.