Disposed

P.N.Sudhakar, v. Mohammed Ismail

Telangana HC19 Sept 2022CCCA/67/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recorded the terms of compromise filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. The compromise involved payment of sums by respondents to the appellant and disposal of the appeal suit in accordance with the settlement agreement.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit in CCCA No. 67 of 2017 was disposed of by recording the terms of the compromise dated 18.07.2022.

P.N.Sudhakar, Vs Mohammed Ismail — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

MONDAY ,THE NINETEENTH^{DAYOF SEPTE[,4BER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA^REDDY

¶5

l.A.NO.3 0F 2022 IN/AND

¶6

CITY CIVIL COU RT APPEAL NO:^{67 OF 2017}

¶7

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C against^{the Judgmentand Decree} d1.25-1 .2012 in O.S.No.656 of^{2OO7 on the file of the Court of the X Additional} Chief Judge-Cum-Fast Track Court,^{City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.}

¶8

Between

¶9

P.N.Sudhakar,, S/o. P.Natarajan,^{Aged 47 years, Occ:Business, R/o.503,Uma} Enclave, Road No.9, Bahjara^{Hitls,Hyderabad,Rep.by G.P.A.Holder,} Mr.K.Ravinder Reddy, S/oK.Chandra^{Reddy, Aged61 years, Occ:Retired Bank} Service, Rl/o.Flat No:402, Divine^{Abode, Opp.SBl, Ashok Nagar Branch, Ashok} Nagar, Hyderabad-s0O^201,

¶10

...APPELLANT/ THIRD PARW

¶11

AND

¶12

Mohammed lsmail,, S/o.Late^{Mohammed Shareef, Aged about 39 years,} Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1 1-3-921, New^{Mallepally, Hyderabad}

¶13

Frasath Hussain Khan,, S/o.Saadath^{Hussain Khan, Aged about 42 years,} Occ:Business, Rl/o.H.No.13-1-1^{2321N7, Ambedkar Nagar Colony, Tappa} Chabootra, Hyderabad.

¶14

N.J.B.Prabhu Varma(Died), Per LRs^{4 to 9.}

¶15

N. Deena Sundari, W/o. Late N.J.S.Prabhu^{Varma, aged about 81 years,} Occ:HouseHold, Rl/o.H.No.13-1-12321N7,^{AmbedkarNagar,Karuvan} Sahu,Hyderabad.Represented by^{her GPANo.2 NakkaDgVangl{Mathews,} S/o.Late Sri.N.J.S..Prabhu Varm'a, aged^{about 60 years, Occ:CivilEngineer,} Ryo.H.No.13-1-'t 2321N7, Ambedjar^{Nagar, Karwan Sahu, Hyderabad.}

¶16

Nakka Dayanand^Mathews, S/o.Late^{Sri NJSPrabhuVarma,.aged about60} years, Oc6:Civil engineer, Rl/o.H.No.¹ 3-'l 2321 N7, Ambedkar^Nagar,Karwan Sahu, Hyderabad.

¶17

Nakka George Prabhakar , S/o.Late^{Sri NJSPrabhuVarma, agedabqut57} years, Occ:- Private Employee, Rl/o.H.No.13^-12321N7, Ambedkar^Nagar, Karwan Sahu, Hyderabad.

¶18

, X:iir_r-:11-*"tr1:dv , S/n Late Sri NJS prabhu Varma, aged abour 56 years, ucc:^pnvate tmployee, R/o.H.No.13_12321NZ, Ambedi.ar ttagar, Kirwa; Sahu, Hyderabad.

¶19

8 Nethala Susan Prabhu Varma, D/o. Late Sri NJS prabhu Varma, W/o.Nethala flnaf^O^ [a1u,^{aged about 55 years, Occ:} House^HotO, Rlo ft.ruo.iO_Z_Zlijii No.202,A-Btock. AC Gurards, gesiOe tncome fai iowers frl-a.il i:"|i, Hyderabad.

¶20

Nethala Suman, D/o. Late Sri NJS prabhu Varma, W/o.Nethala NG Sundara Raju, aqed about 53 vears, Occ: HouiewifJ i/o.V"Lr"ru"rrum VillagJ & lVandal, west Godavari^-District

¶21

(Respondents 4,6 to 9 are represented by their GpA Horder Mr.Nakka Dayanand Mathews, S/o. Latq Sli NJS p.aUtr'u vaima, aged about 6ij t;;;, Occ:Civit Engineer, Ryo.H.No,13-1-1 232iAiiL, emG'dH, Nagui, klila;i Sahu, Hyderabad).

¶22

...RESPONDENTS 6 to 9

¶23

Respondents Nos. 4 to 9^implea.deg as per Court Order dated 19.09.2022, vide l.A.Nos. 2& S of 2022 in CCCA.No.67 oiZOti--'-^-

¶24

(Mr.Nakka Dayanand Mathew-s, S/o.Late Sri, N.J.S. prabhu Varma is permitted to repre_sent Respondents 4,6 to g as a cpA Hotaei ai per court or.ier Jate- - 19.0.2022, vide t.A.No.1 and 4 of 2022, in CCCa.llo-.'Oi oiZOf Zt

¶25

IANO;3OF2 022

¶26

Petition under order XXIr Rure 3 0f cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the terms of compromise as enumerated in the memorandum of compromise dated 1glolt2O22 and to dispose of the appeal tn CCCA.No.67 OF 2017 .

¶27

Counsel forthe Appe ant: SRl. M R S SRINIVAS, Advocate.

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. I & 2 : Mohd Ajmal Ahmed, Advocate.

¶29

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA^REDDY INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.3^{of 2O22} In and CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL^{NO.67 OF 2017}

¶31

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶32

Application in t.A.No.3 of 2022 is filed^undcr Order 23, Rule 3 read with Section 151 of^{CPC for} recording compromise between the^parties as^per memorandum of compromise dated^{18.07.2022and to} dispose of the appeal suit in terms of^{such compromise.} The parties present are identilied by learned^{counsel on} both the sides.

¶33

Perused the averments of supporting affidavit and memorandum of compromise. As^perthe memorandum of compromise, the legal representatives^of the deceased defendant/respondent No.3,^who are^brought on record in the array of respondents as^{respondentNos.4} to 9 vide orders in I.A.Nos.2 and 5 of 2022, are^{entitled for} an amount of Rs.15,0O,O00/-, deposited before the trial Court by Iiling respective cheque petitions, whereas the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have agreed to^pay the total amount of Rs.37,00,000/- to the petitioner Sri P.N.Sudhakar. Out of which, they have already^paid

¶34

Rs.6,O0,C)Oo/- zrttd agrecd to^{pay the balanceamount of} Rs.3l ,OO,OOO/ at the^{time of executionof registeredsale} deecl. It is furthcr^{agrecdthat thc respondent Nos.l and 2} herein and legal representatives^{of thedeceased} respondent No.3, represented^{by their Generai Power of} Attorney Holder Nakka Dayanand^{Mathews-5th respondent} shall executed a registered^{sale deed} in^{favour of the} respondenl Nos.l and 2 along with^{the appellant.The} petitioner i.e. Sri P.N.Sudhakar^is entitled^{for withdrawal ol} an amolrnt of Rs. 11,01,OO0/-,^{depositedby him to the} credit of EP No.lOl of 2015 on^{the hle of the learned X} Additional Chief Judge, City Civil^{Court,Hyderabad} together with interest as mentioned^{in paragraph No'(viii)} of the mernorandum of compromise.^{Thus, in termsof} compromise the appeal suit is disposed of.^{This disposes} I.A.No.3 of 2022 and CCCA No.67 of 2017.^{In the} circumstances of the case, there sha1l be^{no order as to the} costs. Miscellaneous^petitions, if^{any, pending, shall stand} closed.

¶35

SD/.K.SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

¶36

NOTE: Amended as^{per Court Orderdated} Eid-lozz^{made in l.A.No.6ol 2022 in cccA} ffo O7 of 2017 by^{deletingthe word "together with} ini.iestt' in oaraqiaph^{no.2-,8'n line.} inL amendeO o"rder^{substitutedearlier order dated} 19.og.2022 which^{was dispatchedon 10.1o-2o22}

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

SD/.K.SRINIVASA BAO JOrNT REGISTSAR /

¶39

SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

1 The X Additional^{Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad-(with}

¶42

One CC to SRl. M R S SRINIVAS, Advocate. [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. N4OHD AJIMAL^{AHfVED,Advocate} [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy

SB \ V

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:19 t09t2022 26t10t2022

¶47

a.
/

¶48

AMENDED COMMON JUDGMENT

¶49

|.A.NO.3 0F 2022 IN/AND CITY CtVtL COURT AppEAL NO: 67 OF 2017

¶50

D.IS-POSING OF THE]NTERMS OF COMPROMISE IA'S CCCA WITHOUT COSTS @#*

P.N.Sudhakar, v. Mohammed Ismail

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.N.Sudhakar, v. Mohammed Ismail

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

Masuri Nagaiah Vs Jangari Suja

Salvadi Sushma alias Mudsu Sushma Vs Salvadi Suresh

Raishetti , Kolipaka Tirumala Vs Kolipaka Nagasaikiran

Gattoju Haritha Vs G.Sai Ram

Smt. Bandoju Krishnaveni Vs Uppula Aravind Kumar

Mohd Abdus Saleem Vs Smt.Khairunnisa Gouher