Dismissed

Shri. Shamshuddinimamhussain Gorikhan v. Smt. Bakula Krishnaji Dubale

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2023WP/103343/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka accepted a compromise petition filed by the parties in a specific performance suit. With all settlement terms fulfilled, including the payment of remaining consideration, the Court disposed of the writ petition filed to set aside the trial court's earlier rejection of the compromise.

What did the court decide?

Compromise petition accepted; writ petition disposed; respondent directed to execute sale deed within 4 weeks.

Shri. Shamshuddinimamhussain Gorikhan Vs Smt. Bakula… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11994 WP No. 103343 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 103343 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. SHAMSHUDDIN IMAMHUSSAIN GORIKHAN, AGE. 77 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. #E/834, YALLAPUR ROAD, HULATTI VILLAGE, HALIYAL, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581329.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. BAKULA KRISHNAJI DUBALE, AGE. 80 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/AT. BASAVARAJ GALLI, HALIYAL, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581329.

¶14

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed byVISHAL VISHAL NINGAPPA NINGAPPA PATTIHAL PATTIHAL Date: 2023.10.16 13:51:39 +0530

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. HALIYAL DATED 10/02/2023 IN O.S. NO. 14 OF 2022 ON I.A. NO.II, COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11994 WP No. 103343 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ

¶22

of certiorari by setting aside an order dated 10.02.2023 passed in O.S.No.14 of 2022 on I.A.No.II.

¶23

During the pendency of the petition, the parties to the lis have settled the dispute before the trial Court by arriving at a compromise. The petition is therefore filed seeking to record the said compromise and close the proceedings. The terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties reads as follows:

¶24

“COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ORDER XXIII, RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

¶25

The petitioner and respondent submit as follows:

¶26

1. The present writ petition is filed calling in question the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Haliyal, passed in O.S No. 14 of 2022 on I.A No. II, whereby the compromise petition filed by the petitioner and the respondent is rejected by the trial court.

¶27

2. It is submitted that respondent herein had entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner in respect of the suit property for a valuable sale consideration of Rs. 4,75,000/- by receiving Rs. 4,50,000/- as advance sale consideration. Upon refusal of her part to execute the sale

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11994 WP No. 103343 of 2023

¶30

deed, the petitioner instituted suit for specific performance in OS. No. 14 of 2022.

¶31

3. It is submitted that during the course of the proceedings, the matter is compromised between the parties and petitioner filed an application under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed to decree the suit by recording the compromise. The trial court on the premise that in the mutation entries the names of the respondent's uncles are appearing in revenue records in 1974 rejected the application.

¶32

4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application, the present writ petition has been filed. This Hon'ble Court has granted an interim order and all further proceedings are stayed by this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that inview of the compromise being arrived between the parties, the present compromise is presented before this Hon'ble Court, in the same terms as that was presented before the trial court, with additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- being paid to the respondent.

¶33

The terms of the settlement are reduced into writing as under:

¶34

5. The suit property is bearing RS No. 51, measuring 08 Acres 20 Guntas, situated at Hullatti village, Tq: Haliyal, Dist: Karwar.

¶35

6. The respondent admits that she has agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the petitioner for valuable sale

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11994 WP No. 103343 of 2023

¶38

consideration of Rs.6,75,000/(Rupees Four Lakh Seventy-Five Thousand Rupees Only).

¶39

7. The respondent agrees and admits that she has received a sum of Rs,4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand Rupees Only) from the petitioner as advance sale consideration.

¶40

8. The respondent admits the execution and attestation of Agreement of Sale dated 16/05/2007. The respondent admits the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement of sale.

¶41

9. The petitioner has agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) to the respondent for purchasing the suit property. The petitioner has paid the balance sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand Only) along with additional consideration amount of Rs. 2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakh Only) through RTGS dated 26/09/2023 bearing No: UBIN423269462819 and the respondent admits the receipt of the same into her bank account. A copy of the RTGS acknowledgment is produced herewith with account extract.

¶42

10. The respondent undertakes not to disturb peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit -property as stated above, and would not claim any title over the property and duly respect the right, title and right of enjoyment of the suit property by the petitioner.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11994 WP No. 103343 of 2023

¶45

11. The respondent shall co-operate for the registration of the deed of sale before the competent authority.

¶46

12. The both parties assure that the present compromise is entered to settle the dispute between the parties, and assure and to promise to each of the respective parties to not to drive the respective parties to the Court of law either in respect of title over the property or the boundary.

¶47

13. The respondent agree that to get the mutation entries done in the name of the petitioner to which the respondent has no objections.

¶48

14. This compromise is lawful, would not take away any third party rights and executed with free mind without any undue influence, coercion and executed with open mind to settle with pending disputes.

¶49

Wherefore it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take on record, accept and record the compromise entered between the parties in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶50

The learned counsel for the parties would submit

¶51

that the conditions stipulated in terms of compromise have all been fulfilled and the parties present before the Court acknowledge said fulfillment of such conditions. What remains is execution of the sale deed pursuant to the

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11994 WP No. 103343 of 2023

¶53

¶54

settlement arrived at and the respondent undertakes to

¶55

execute the sale deed in terms of the settlement within four

¶56

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶57

For the aforesaid reasons, the compromise

¶58

petition is accepted and the following order is passed.

¶59

ORDER

¶60

Accordingly, the petition is disposed.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

kmv ct:bck

Shri. Shamshuddinimamhussain Gorikhan v. Smt. Bakula Krishnaji Dubale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Shamshuddinimamhussain Gorikhan v. Smt. Bakula Krishnaji Dubale

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

Dr Anand Haliyal Vs State by CBI

Dr B E Sandeep M B B S M D Vs State by Central Bureau of Investigation

Rajasingh Takur @ Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Avakka W/O Basappa Majathi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri Sushil Pandurang Mantri Vs the State of Karnataka by

Khaja Ammenuddin S/O Ismailsab Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka