Shri Vithoba Balu Nikam Vs Shri Khanderao @ Abasaheb Ganesh Kulkarni — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shri Vithoba Balu Nikam Vs Shri Khanderao @ Abasaheb Ganesh Kulkarni — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; judgment and decree dated 13.07.2007 of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.45/2002 set aside; appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, whereby respondent No.1 is to receive Rs. 3,70,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim over the suit schedule property and the appellants become entitled to the entire suit schedule property after such payment; the compromise petition forms part of the compromise decree, which the parties may register, following which the revenue authorities shall act upon it in terms of the Land Revenue Act.

Ratio / Principle

The Court accepted the terms and conditions of the settlement reached between the parties, being satisfied that they were just and proper and in the better interest of the parties.

Key takeaways

The appeal is allowed.ratio¶69
The impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.45/2002 is set aside.ratio¶72
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.ratio¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC by the legal representatives of the original appellants, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2007 of the Fast Track Court-I (District and Sessions Judge), Chikodi in R.A.No.45/2002 and to confirm the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2002 of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Chikodi in O.S.No.82/1994. It was noted that respondents 2 to 8 had not contested the suit and the suit schedule property stood in the name of respondent No.1 alone. Through their GPA holders, the parties compromised: respondent No.1 agreed to accept ₹3,70,000/- towards full and final settlement of his claim over the suit schedule property, whereafter the appellants would be entitled to the entire suit schedule property. Two demand drafts of ₹75,000/- each (totalling ₹1,50,000/-) were acknowledged as received, with the remaining ₹2,20,000/- payable as agreed. Satisfied that the settlement was just and proper and in the better interest of the parties, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the first appellate court's judgment and decree, and disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC; the compromise petition forms part of the compromise decree, which the parties may register, upon which the revenue authorities shall act in terms of the Land Revenue Act.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18221 RSA No. 2637 of 2007

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2637 OF 2007 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VITHOBA BALU NIKAM SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1A. YASHODA W/O. VITHOBA NIKAM, AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BORAGAON, TQ. CHILODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

1B. SHAILAJA VASANT KADAM AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HAROLI, TQ. SHIROL, DIST. KOLHAPUR.

1C. VIMAL TUKARAM MOHITE AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KURUNDWAD, TQ. SHIROL, DIST. KOLHAPUR.

Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.12.17
10:07:49
+0530

1D. BALASAHEB S/O. VITHOBA NIKAM, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BORAGAON, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

1E. BIBUTAI MOUNESHWAR BIDAKAR AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KURUNDWAD, TQ. SHIROL, DIST. KOLHAPUR.

1F. SULOCHANA DINAKAR KADAM AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HAROLI, TQ. SHIROL, DIST. KOLHAPUR.

1G. PUNDALIK S/O. VITHOBA NIKAM,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18221 RSA No. 2637 of 2007

HC-KAR

AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BORAGAON, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

SRI. MAHADEV ANNU NIKAM SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

2A. SMT. SUSHILA MAHADEV NIKAM AGE: 68 YEARS, , OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BORAGAON-591201, TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

2B. SRI. MARUTI MAHADEV NIKAM AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BORAGAON-591201, TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

2C. SADASHIV MAHADEV NIKAM AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BORAGAON-591201, TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

2D. SRI. SHIVAJI MAHADEV NIKAM AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BORAGAON-591201, TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

2D(I). SEEMS W/O. SHIVAJI NIKAM AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BORAGAON, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

2D(II). NIKHIL S/O. SHIVAJI NIKAM AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BORAGAON, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

2D(III). SWATHI W/O. RAKESH LAGALE, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MANJARIWADI, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18221 RSA No. 2637 of 2007

HC-KAR

2D(IV). MADHURI D/O. SHIVAJI NIKAM AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BORAGAON, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

2E. SMT. GEETA MARUTI POWAR AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. EXAMBA-591201, TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2F. SMT. LALITA SHIVAJI WASKAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BORAGAON-591201, TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2G. SRI. BANDU MAHADEV NIKAM AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BORAGAON-591201, TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. KHANDERAO @ ABASAHEB GANESH KULKARNI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. C/O. A.B. KULKARNI, TAMBANEKAR WADE, WARD NO.2/A, ICHALKARANJI-416115, TALUK: HATKANAGALA, DIST. KOLHAPUR.

SRI. BABU GANESH KULKARNI AGE: 50 YEARS, , OCC. SERVICE, R/O. SHIRADWAD-416103, TQ. SHIROL, DIST. KOLHAPUR.

SRI. ATMARAM MAHADEV BORAGAONKAR AGE: 68 YEARS, , OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHUKRAWAR PETH, NEAR PEEWALE WADA, KOLHAPUR-416001.

SRI. DHONDIRAM GURUNATH KULKARNI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. WARD NO.2, HOUSE NO.48, NADIVES, ICHALAKARANJI-416115,

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18221 RSA No. 2637 of 2007

HC-KAR

TQ. HATAKANAGALA, DIST. KOLHAPUR.

SRI. NANDAKUMAR GANESH KULKARNI AGE: 45 YEARS, , OCC. SERVICE, R/O. WARD NO.2, HOUSE NO.48, NADIVES, ICHALKARANJI-416115, TQ. HATAKANAGALA, DIST. KOLHAPUR.

SRI. BALAWANT VASUDEV KULKARNI AGE: 78 YEARS, , OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SHUKRAWAR PETH, PEEWALE WADA, KOLHAPUR-416001.

SRI. MUKUND VASUDEV KULKARNI AGE: 73 YEARS, , OCC. SERVICE, R/O. SHUKRAWAR PETH, PEEWALE WADA, KOLHAPUR-416001.

SRI. DILEEP VASUDEV KULKARNI AGE: 68 YEARS, , OCC. SERVICE, R/O. SHUKRAWAR PETH, PEEWALE WADA, KOLHAPUR-416001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3-APPEAL DISMISSED; R4, R5, R7-DISPENSED WITH; R6 AND R8-NOTICE SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2007 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT-I (DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE) CHIKODI IN R.A.NO.45/2002, AND FURTHER THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.01.2002 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) CHIKODI IN O.S.NO.82/1994 MAY KINDLY BE CONFIRMED BY ALLOWING THIS RSA WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18221 RSA No. 2637 of 2007

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

The GPA holder of the appellants, who is the son of appellant No.1(b) viz., Pritam Balasaheb Nikam is present along with the counsel for the appellants. The GPA order of the respondent No.1 viz., Vijay Abasaheb Kulkarni is present. This Court also notices that the general power of attorney executed by the appellants and the respondent No.1 are also placed before this Court.

It is noticed that the respondent No.2 to 8 had not contested the suit and the suit schedule property was standing in the name of the respondent No.1 alone.

Both the GPA holders submit that they have entered into a compromise and the respondent No.1 is ready to receive a sum of ₹3,70,000/- towards the full and final settlement in respect of the claim over the suit schedule property and the appellants would be entitled for the entire suit schedule property after such payment.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18221 RSA No. 2637 of 2007

HC-KAR

The records reveal that on 03.12.2025, before this Court, the parties had reached a settlement between them. Now the parties submit that the terms and conditions of the settlement have been narrated in the compromise petition and the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

Both the parties, who are present, acknowledged the contents of the compromise petition. The GPA holder of respondent No.1 also acknowledged the receipt of two demand drafts of ₹75,000/- each, totaling ₹1,50,000/-. Remaining amount of ₹2,20,000/- shall be paid by the appellant as agreed in the compromise petition. Having satisfied with the terms and conditions of the settlement reached between the parties are just and property and that it being in the better interest of the parties, the same is accepted.

Therefore, the appeal deserves to be disposed of in

terms of the compromise petition and hence the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18221 RSA No. 2637 of 2007

HC-KAR

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.45/2002 is hereby set aside.

(iii) The present appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.

(iv) The compromise petition shall be part of the compromise decree.

(v) After payment of the entire amount, contemplated under the compromise, the parties are at liberty to register the compromise decree as required under law.

(vi) After such registration, the revenue authorities shall act upon it in terms of the Land Revenue Act.

SD/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

YAN CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29