Allowed

Sri Mohammed Hussain v. Sri Abdul Karim

Karnataka HC29 Jul 2024RFA/5/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a first appeal arising from a decree for specific performance. The appeal was resolved based on a compromise petition filed by the parties, wherein the parties admitted execution of a registered sale deed and payment of consideration. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and decree set aside; suit decreed in terms of compromise petition.

Sri Mohammed Hussain Vs Sri Abdul Karim — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:29849-DB RFA No.5/2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.5/2021 (SP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MOHAMMED HUSSAIN S/O SRI ABDUL GANI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS PERMANENT RESIDENT OF GULBARGA, PRESENTLY CAMPED AT NO.5, 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, BHUPASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 094

¶9

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI.NOOR MOHAMMED KHALEEL S/O NOORULLA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5, 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, BHUPASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 094 (APPELLANT NO.2 DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.07.2024)

¶11

SRI MOHAMMED AYAZ KHAN S/O SRI MOHAMMED KHURSHEED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT HALED KERI (K) VILLAGE, HYDERABAD ROAD, BIDAR,

¶12

KARNATAKA – 585 401 … APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI.SHRAVAN S LOKRE, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI ABDUL KARIM AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS S/O LATE SHEIK MASTAN RESIDING AT NO.117, 2^ND CROSS, KANAKANAGARA, KAVALBYRASANDRA,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:29849-DB RFA No.5/2021

¶18

R T NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032 …RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI.MOHAMMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.11.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.16271/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDL.CITY CVIIL JUDGE AT MAYO HALL UNIT, (CCH-29) BANGALORE DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND

¶23

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submits IA No.1/2024 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC for deleting the name of appellant No.2, along with special power of attorney executed by appellant No.1 in favour of appellant No.3.

¶27

This appeal arises out of the decree for specific performance granted by the Trial Court in O.S.No.16271/2006. Initially the said suit was filed for bare injunction and appellant No.2/defendant No.2 was impleaded in the said case on the ground that he was also interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff/respondent claimed that defendant

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:29849-DB RFA No.5/2021

¶30

No.1/appellant No.1 executing the agreement of sale dated 15.11.2005 put him in possession of the property.

¶31

Subsequent to that appellant No.3/defendant No.3 got himself impleaded in the case on the ground that on 11.07.2006 appellant /defendant No.1 has executed a gift deed in his favour. Subsequently, the suit was converted to one for specific performance. However, appellant/defendant No.2 continued in the records. Since he is not interested in the property, he is not a necessary party to the suit or appeal. Therefore, his name is struck down from the array of defendant No.2/appellant No.2 as prayed for. IA No.1/2024 is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Since appellant No.2/defendant No.2’s name is struck down from the array of parties, the office objections that his signature on the compromise petition differs, does not survive. Even otherwise his signature was identified by the Advocate on record. Therefore, it is not open to the registry to question that.

¶33

Appellant No.1, respondent/Abdul Karim, counsel for the appellants and respondent are present. The parties are duly identified by the respective counsel.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:29849-DB RFA No.5/2021

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent

¶37

submit the compromise petition. They submit that the earlier compromise petitions dated 27.03.2024 and 03.07.2024 are not pressed. Therefore, they are disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Heard the parties on the compromise petition. Respondent, Mohammad Aamir Sharif and appellant No.3 who is the power of attorney holder of appellant No.1 admit the contents of the compromise petition. They further admit that both of them after settling the matter in terms of the compromise petition have executed the registered sale deed dated 31.05.2024 in favour of Mohammed Aamir Sharif. They further admit that as stated in the compromise petition appellant No.1 and the respondent have received Rs.24,50,000/- by way of demand draft dated 20.03.2024 and Rs.5,20,000/- by DD dated 09.04.2024 each drawn on ICICI Bank, Bengaluru. They admit that in the aforesaid transaction, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is deducted towards tax at source from the sale consideration and the purchaser is put in possession of the property.

¶39

Satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and admissible in law. Therefore, the same is recorded. Appeal

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:29849-DB RFA No.5/2021

¶42

deserves to be allowed in terms of compromise petition. Hence

¶43

the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The appeal is allowed.

¶46

ii) The impugned judgment and decree is hereby set aside.

¶47

iii) The suit in O.S.No.16271/2006 is decreed in terms of the compromise petition.

¶48

iv) The Court fee paid on the appeal shall be refunded to the appellant.

¶49

v) The amount in deposit before the Trial Court shall be refunded to the respondent/plaintiff.

¶50

vi) Return the TCRs to the Trial Court.

¶51

vii) If at all the parties apply for return of the exhibited document, the Trial Court shall return the same in accordance with Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC.

¶52

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶53

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶54

AKC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri Mohammed Hussain v. Sri Abdul Karim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammed Hussain v. Sri Abdul Karim

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Asif @ Asif Ahmed

Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Ranga @ Gaviranga @ Harisha Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmana Vs Mahadeva

S.A. Bhagavan Setty Vs the Competent Authority

The Manager Vs Smt Monisha S K