IN RSA NO.19G8}200$:
1.
IN THE HIGH COI}RT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1:6?' BAY on' SEPTEMBEIi';"2Q{§Q A'
BEFORE
TI-IE HON'BLE MR. JUs'r1cE»A,s. B'6ié;§.r¢iHA* _
REGULAR sarcoma APPEAL No, 19es1g'oo5tDec:'gxC._ga;
REGULAR snconmgppngig' 2&6-L 1967/ 2CG'5fD'écln 85
'BETWEEN; *1.» '
sV1\.4$..1AMAL'B;_ @ ROSHAr$B:V_
VJ/O.LAT'E BABUSAB BELERI
AGED ABO';:JffF_S<3_ Y'EA;2s -
DAVAL 'MAI';11_
SMT. HASHINABAET.'--CHAEc'K
.. BETGERI, "GADAC'r~582 102.
MGHAMMED RAFIQ CALLS HIMSELF
AS S/'Q DECEASED BABUSAB BELERI
AGED AEQUT 25 YEARS
"-.T'R/0--."H.OSPET CHECK
' BETGE--R1, GADAG--582102.
i
"r
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPBY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GADAG DISTRICT,
GADAG.
4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(ACCOUNTS AND ENIT)
STATE OF' KARNATAKA
P.B.NO.5329 ,_ _ ._
BANGALORE-560 001. RESRON.D~ENTS
(By Sri. BSHARANABASAWA,ADVDZFOISSRV1
Ti-HS RSA IS FILED U/S_;mo OF CPC_SVAGAIVN'ST"'jTHE"I
JUDGMENT AND DECREE 'DT;3I.8.2005"PA:S;SED IN
R.A.NO.Is5/2002 O1\IfT.i-IE FI'LEVI_:'0F'»I..THE 'CIVIL, JUDGE
(SRDN) AND CJM, GAD_AjG_, DIS;;vIISSING~ITHE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE IIUD-GI'vIEI$IfI"---f'_=_AND DECREE
DT.19.10.2002 EASSEDVTIVN.O.S;--N'O_.224/A2000 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL.;CI'\.§.I_I;~JU1?)GE', {JR;'DN)-',_"GA_I)fAG.
IN RSA NO;1'§67(_éCo5'{*f,V__ _ --
BETWEEN; .
SMT.'J~AMALi3I-@' R'OSI%ANBI
- _ w,{LO:.LATEBAEUSAE. EELERI,
V' AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
_ R/_0' NEAR..E'S.HwAR TEMLPLE,
" KU.RARA'I_'TI
GA_DAG_.. . I
EETA(;I'E4R1','
GADAG582102. ....APRELLANT
('ID/.'I's'/I/S JAYAKUMAR SJATIL 85 ASSOCIATES)
1».
AND:
1. SMTHASHINABABU @ ROSHANB1
@ BANUBI,
DIVORCED WIFE OF BABUSAB BELERI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEI~IOLD WORK, I _
R/O HOSPET CHECK, '
BETGERI,
GADAG-582102.
2. STATE OF' KARNATAKA
REPBY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER _ I
GADAG DISTRICT;,_ -A
GADAG. ~*
3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(ACCOUNTS AND ;ENIT)*, *
STATE OF K;A»RNA*TAIIA'
P.B.NO';5§'~}29~».»-7:--_ ~
BANGALO.R§§--56O'OVCIEQ : RESPONDENTS
(By Sr;:_. B.S_HAvRANABA–S.A¥.R{A,_ ADV. FOR R1 82; 2)
THISRSAV~F’EI;EDAV’I’1.j/’S.iO0 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT . AND DEGREE: DT.31.8.2005 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.156f..2002 ON. THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(SRDNO; AND GADAG, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
“”~.._CONPIR.MING JUDGMENT AND DEGREE
._ .E)T..19 NV10…2-QVOQ PASSED IN O.S.NO.282/2000 ON THE FILE
OIATI-IE”PRI1,’; ‘CIVIL JUDGE (JRDN), GADAG.
THEISEAPPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, TI;~;I-E COURT DELIVERED THE POLLOWING:
I
vs
J'{3DGMEN’l’
Sri. Sharanabasava, learned counsel has entered
appearance for the respondents in both these appeAa1Vs;.”_l”I’_l_1e_
vakalath filed on behalf of the respondents _
record. _
2. Both these appeals arise” out *
f the -V id coninion.
judgment dtd. 19/10/2002 passeei.Vifi’.A_A_o’§s.Ne’.
and 282/2000. The judgmefiband decree’ ‘~.th’e;’saiti”jsuit ” A
was also the subject matter of–thpev-appeal –R,A.\..’l\los. 155
and 156/2002. The issuerressef§.tialljz’Vbefore the trial court
was with ‘–regarcili§’@..:U’lélli’stéitus’ of the plaintiffs in the said
suit, to be” declared thpejrespective wives and legal heirs of
deceasved Babusab B6,-leri. The suits in question were
in and accordingly the regular appeal was filed.
Since tliere__ concurrent judgments rendered by the
h 4″ ‘ = the ‘ udgrnents.
Courts =.beiov'{r, the appellants are before this Court assailing
$
Fl
3. During the pendency of these appeals the parties
have entered into a Compromise and accordingly separate
compromise petition Under Order 23 Rule 3 is filed
these appeals. However, the nature of the compromise
same to both the suits. in this regard thei–re_latVion:sh_ip
being now accepted by the parties», in the}
the compromise petition andgalso there is an iinderstangding
with regard to the receipt of th’e,:termina1′.ble’n*elfits2§and also
the sharing of the property regard tolthe grant of
compassionate appointment. compromise
petition, which i’s~fi’|ed b.’efc§1’e:~thi’s :.C’o_urt__isirnade a part of the
records of _appea.4lvs:.._’Th.e -parties who have signed the
cornprornise ppetitioinsilarel'”also present before this Court.
Both the learned’counseliappearing for the appellants as well
as”re:sp1.ondents statethat they have identified the respective
1:5-cV1rties:”‘aii<.;lltheiyj are satisfied with regard to the nature of
comlpromiselgentered into between them. In that light, K have
perusedthe compromise petition and there is no terrn which
isleontrary to law as agreed between the parties. Therefore,
the compromise petition is accepted and made a part of this
Order. _ __
4. In terms of the compromise, both these4..a:ppe~a_1s
stand disposed of. Hence the judgment arid _
by the trial court stands modified in-~«.AthVe’
compromise. Certified copy of the icomproifiisehii:;e’titionV.c
be attached to this order whi§e.4_issuif1.g the certified copy of
this order.
sal-
hnrnff’