Disposed

Smt. Megha W/O Abhay Khandekar v. Shri. Kiran S/O Marutirao Jadhav

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2024RFA/100293/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a first appeal in a property dispute where the appellant's suit for declaration of title was dismissed. The court accepted a compromise petition filed by the parties, wherein the appellant abandoned her claim in exchange for specific respondents paying Rs. 16,00,000.

What did the court decide?

The appeal stands disposed accepting the terms of the compromise petition; court fee to be refunded to the appellant.

Smt. Megha W/O Abhay Khandekar Vs Shri. Kiran S/O Marutirao Jadhav — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12053-DB RFA No. 100293 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100293 OF 2017 (DEC/POS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MEGHA W/O. ABHAY KHANDEKAR, AGE: 52 YEAR, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: “ABHAY BUILDING”, RANADE COLONY, II CROSS, HINDWADI, BELAGAVI-590 011. (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.24 10:32:14 +0530

¶12

SHRI. KIRAN S/O. MARUTIRAO JADHAV, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: CTS 4710, NEW GOODSHED ROAD, BELAGAVI-590 002.

¶13

SHRI. NITIN S/O. VINAYAKRAO BHATKANDE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PANGUL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590 001.

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12053-DB RFA No. 100293 of 2017

¶15

SHRI. ANNASAHEB S/O. SADASHIV CHOUGULE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHANTI BUILDING, NO.VIII, RADHAKRISHNA CROSS, HINDWADI, BELAGAVI-590 011.

¶16

SHRI. V.V.SANATHKUMAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 5^TH CROSS, ADARSH NAGAR, VADGAON, BELAGAVI-590 011.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96(1) READ WITH OR XLI RULE 1 OF C.P.C., 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.93/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION, MESNE PROFITS AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12053-DB RFA No. 100293 of 2017

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)

¶25

The appellant is unsuccessful in her suit in O.S. No.93/2012 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi inasmuch as her suit for declaration of title to the subject property with further consequential relief/s is dismissed.

¶26

Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri.V.M.Sheelvant, the learned counsel for the third and the fourth respondents, while canvassing there is a serious dispute about the identity of the property had respectively submitted on the previous occasion that the appellant could consider withdrawing the appeal in full and final settlement of all claims, if a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- is paid and that the third and fourth respondents are willing only to pay a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- and nothing beyond.

¶27

Presently, the appellant, the second and the third respondents are present and they are identified by their

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12053-DB RFA No. 100293 of 2017

¶29

respective counsels. When queried, they admit that the appellant has agreed to receive a total sum of Rs.16,00,000/[ Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only ] as compensation and reimbursement of all costs and claims and that the respondents have agreed to pay that amount accordingly. In fact, the parties have filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “ the CPC ”], which reads as under:

¶30

“1. The appellant/plaintiff do declare that she has claim against the property belong to the respondents/defendants bearing Sy No 32/2/2/1A measuring 3 Guntas 1 Ana 95 paisa now numbered as CTS No 4026 of Angol, Belgaum and they are absolute owners of the said property. The appellant has no claim whatsoever in the property of the respondents/defendants.

¶31

2. The appellant/ plaintiff does hereby declare and agree that the suit property i.e. CTS No 4026 measuring 2 Guntas 15 Anas, western side, out of 405/B totally measuring 80'X 40' of R S No.32/1/20A 1^st Cross, Bhagyanagar, Angol Belgaum shown in plaint sketch Map by letters "A B C D" as claimed by her do not exist & she neither owns nor possesses suit property.

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12053-DB RFA No. 100293 of 2017

¶33

3. The appellant hereby agrees and undertakes that she or anybody claiming through her will not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing CTS No. 4026 (OLD RS No. 32/2/2/1A) measuring 3 Guntas 1 Ana 95 Paisa by the respondents/defendants.

¶34

4. The appellant has received Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Only) from respondents 3 and 4 through Demand draft drawn on HDFC Bank, Belagavi in favour of appellant/Megha W/o Abhay Khandekar, DD bearing no.000709 Ref No.95293508737 dated 22/08/2024 towards full and final settlement of all her claims.

¶35

5. The appellant and respondent 3 and 4 agree that the respondents 1 and 2 are only developers and the respondent 3 and 4 are the only owners of the property bearing SY No. 32/2/2/1A measuring 3 Guntas 1 Ana 95 paisa now m\numbered as CTS No. 4026 of Angel, Belgaum. Hence respondents 1 to 2 are not necessary parties to the compromise petition.”

¶36

The Appellant acknowledges that the third and

¶37

fourth respondents have handed over the Demand Draft bearing No.000709 Ref No. 95293508737 dated 22.08.2024 drawn on HDFC Bank, Belagavi branch. This Court is persuaded to opine that the parties have settled their

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12053-DB RFA No. 100293 of 2017

¶39

dispute in accordance with law and therefore, the appeal must be disposed of accepting the terms of the compromise with appropriate orders on refund of Court fee to the appellant. Hence the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The appeal stands disposed of in terms as aforesaid and directing the office to refund the Court fee paid by the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

¶42

The office shall also draw decree accordingly.

¶43

Sd/(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶44

Sd/(C.M.JOSHI) JUDGE

¶45

RSH,YAN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Smt. Megha W/O Abhay Khandekar v. Shri. Kiran S/O Marutirao Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Megha W/O Abhay Khandekar v. Shri. Kiran S/O Marutirao Jadhav

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. Balappa @ Balappa S/O Pandappa Murteppanavar Vs Smt. Annavva W/O Balappa @ Balappa Murteppanavar

Smt.Annavva W/O. Balappa Vs Balappa @ Balappa S/O. Pandappa Murteppanavar

Shabbirsab S/O Sakrusab Doddamani Vs Mohammadsab S/O Abdul Rehmansab Doddamani

Shri. Yallappa Alias Maruti Dhamanekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Basamma W/O Sidramayya Gowdar Vs Smt Siddalingamma W/O Veerabhadrayya Nandavadagi

Shri.Ashok S/O Narayan Jadhav Vs Shri.Maruthi S/O Irappa Patil