Disposed

Smt Krishna Pyari Kabra , Kishan Pyari Kabara and 2 Others v. Goutham Rao R/O Khairatabad, Hyderabad

Telangana HC11 Oct 2018AS/682/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed two applications: one for appointing a special power of attorney for the respondent, and another for compromise. The court set aside the prior judgment and decree for specific performance based on a mutual settlement where appellants paid Rs.4 Lakhs to withdraw all rights over the property.

What did the court decide?

Allowed IA.Nos. 1 and 2; set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 31-10-2006 in O.S.No.168/2003; disposed of the appeal subject to compromise terms.

Smt Krishna Pyari Kabra , Kishan Pyari Kabara and 2… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

and

¶3

The Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud

¶4

IA.No.1 of 2018 in/& AS.No.682 of 2006

¶5

Date: 11.10.2018

¶6

Between :
Smt.Krishna Pyari Kabra @ Kishan Pyari Kabra
and 2 others
…
Appellants
and
Goutham Rao
…
Respondent
:
Counsel for the Appellants Mr.TV.Rajeevan
Counsel for the respondent : Mr.C.Hanumantha Rao
The Court made the following:

¶7

CVNR, J & TA, J IA.No.1/2018 in/& AS.No.682/2006 Date: 11.10.2018

¶8

¶9

Common Judgment : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶10

The defendants in OS.No.168 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, filed this Appeal assailing the Judgment and Decree, dated 31.10.2006, passed therein by the said Court for specific performance of an agreement of sale.

¶11

IA.No.1 of 2018 is filed for permitting the Special Power of Attorney viz ., Mr.P.Ganga Rao to represent the respondent herein.

¶12

IA.No.2 is filed for permission to compromise the dispute in the Appeal based on the Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the parties. In the affidavit, filed in support of this Application, the parties have set out the terms of compromise, which read as under:

¶13

“1. The appellants have paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/(Rupees Four Lakhs Only) by way of Demand Draft vide bearing No.978007 dated 3-10-2018 at SBI Shamirpet, to the respondent/plaintiff in withdrawal of all his claims and rights over the suit schedule property.

¶14

The respondent/plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the plaintiff to the suit account with accrued interest and that the appellants have agreed to file no objection for receiving the said amount by the respondent/plaintiff. 3. The respondent/plaintiff withdraws all his claims over the suit schedule property under the subject agreement of sale and decree dated 31-10-2006 in O.S.No.168/2003 on the file of the

¶15

CVNR, J & TA, J IA.No.1/2018 in/& AS.No.682/2006 Date: 11.10.2018

¶16

¶17

Hon’ble V Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶18

The respondent/plaintiff withdraws all his claims over the suit schedule property under the subject agreement of sale and under the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2006 in O.S.No.168/2003 on the file of the Hon’ble V Additional District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid settlement and compromise the judgment in O.S.No.168/2003 dated 31-10-2006 on the file of the Hon’ble V Additional District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar is not enforceable and not binding on the parties.”

¶20

Mr.P.Ganga Rao and appellant No.3, who is the sole surviving

¶21

appellant in the appeal, are present in the Court. Appellant No.3 admitted that Mr.P.Ganga Rao is the Special Power of Attorney holder of the respondent and that the settlement has been arrived between himself and the said Special Power of Attorney as per the terms of the above-mentioned compromise. The respondent informed the Court that he has given up his claim under the Judgment and Decree, dated 31.10.2006, in OS.No.168 of 2003 in terms of the said compromise.

¶22

In the light of the above, IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2018 are allowed, Judgment and Decree, dated 31-10-2016, in OS.No.168 of 2003, which are the subject matter of the Appeal are set aside subject to the terms of compromise reproduced above and the Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. It is needless to observe that if the respondent files application for refund of the amounts deposited by

¶23

CVNR, J & TA, J IA.No.1/2018 in/& AS.No.682/2006 Date: 11.10.2018

¶24

¶25

him, the same shall be ordered by the Court below and the amount shall be refunded to him in terms of Clause 2 of the terms of

¶26

compromise reproduced above.

¶27

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶28

___________________ (T.Amarnath Goud, J)

¶29

Date: 11^th October, 2018 lur

¶30

CVNR, J & TA, J IA.No.1/2018 in/& AS.No.682/2006 Date: 11.10.2018

¶31

Smt Krishna Pyari Kabra , Kishan Pyari Kabara and 2 Others v. Goutham Rao R/O Khairatabad, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Krishna Pyari Kabra , Kishan Pyari Kabara and 2 Others v. Goutham Rao R/O Khairatabad, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Pavani Steels, and 3 Others Vs M/S Shiv Steels [Secunderabad] Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad.

M.A. Qayyaum, Secbad. and 8 Ano. Vs M.A. Majid, Hyd. and 13 Ano.

M/S.Sri Anjani Mines and Minerals Vs M/S. Oremet Minerals and Metals Pvt.Ltd

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Vs M/S. S.V.R. Cables (P) Ltd., and Another

Srinivas Kabra and 2 Others Vs P. Ganga Rao R/O Khairatabad, Hyderabad

Nadimpalli Nagendra Madhu Varma Vs Nadimpalli Ranga Jyothi