Partly allowed

Y.B. Preethi v. v. Narsa Reddy

Telangana HC26 Oct 2015SA/367/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a property dispute, the court accepted a settlement between the appellants and respondent-1. The appeal concerning these parties was disposed of via a relinquishment deed, making respondent-1 the absolute owner, while the appeal against other respondents was dismissed as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Appellants executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of respondent-1; appeal against respondent-1 disposed of per compromise; appeal against respondents 2-4 dismissed.

Y.B. Preethi Vs v. Narsa Reddy — Partition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

S.A.M.P.No.2055 of 2015

¶3

In/And Second Appeal No.367 of 2015

¶4

JUDGMENT:

¶5

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘the code’, for brevity) is directed against the judgment dated 01.12.2014 passed in A.S.no.30 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. The learned Additional District Judge had allowed the appeal while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2014 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni in O.S.No.102 of 2007.

¶6

2. When this second appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for both the sides had submitted that the parties, i.e., the appellants 1 and 2 and the 1^st respondent have amicably settled the matter at the instance of the well wishers and now, both the parties, having settled the matter, moved S.A.M.P.No.2055 of 2015 seeking to pass decree in terms of the memorandum of compromise. The Memorandum of compromise has been placed on record.

¶7

3. The appellants 1 and 2 and respondents 1 and 4 are present before this Court. They have been duly identified by the learned counsel appearing on their behalf. The parties had also produced copies of documents showing their identity.

¶8

4. The terms of the compromise are read over and explained to the parties in the presence of the learned counsel and the same are admitted. This Court is satisfied that the parties voluntarily and with free will and consent have entered into the compromise.

¶9

5. Under the terms of the compromise, the appellants have executed the registered relinquishment deed dated 09.09.2015, vide document no.8669 of 2015 in favour of the 1^st respondent herein relinquishing their rights in respect of said plot nos.49, 50 and 51 and that the appellants had agreed not to claim right, title or interest in respect of the said plots and that the 1^st respondent shall be the absolute owner and possessor of the said plots. It was further stated in the terms of compromise that the appeal against respondents 2 to 4 is not pressed.

¶10

6. In the result, S.A.M.P.No.2055 of 2015 is ordered and the Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise insofar as the appellants 1 and 2 and the 1^st respondent is concerned. However, the appeal against respondents 2 to 4 is dismissed as not pressed. A copy of the Memorandum of Compromise shall be annexed to the decree. No costs.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶13

26^th October 2015 RAR

Y.B. Preethi v. v. Narsa Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.B. Preethi v. v. Narsa Reddy

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

United India Insuance Co. Ltd. Vs Abbas Shabber Shaik , Shaik Abbas

Bonthu Anasuya, Vs Byrisetti Ramalakshmana Rao

Union of India Vs Pulivathi Murali

S. Appanna Vs B. Rama Rao (died)

U.Veer Setty Vs M.Manasseh [Died] per LRs v.M.Lalitha

Ghousia Begum (died) Vs Mirza Azam Baig (since died per his Lrs)