I .
- "cm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY 09 FEBRUAR§{,_' éG:4i'{§ VV.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUs'I'1c1--:'A;'s;
R.S.A N0. s'5e12oLov2f .
BETWEEN:
Smt.Lax:rnibai W/ '
Gouda Pat1'1_"' " -
Aged about
Patil, ....
Sri . R at {zen goud a
A g e 5 4 .
Both 6
Tq: Gadag, -Dist: ?Ga.dag.
S.iff'«i.LjfiétiifthahW"--3-firanganagouda Patil
«Age: years,
rR:/'Q.Yalavgyttj, Tq: Shirahatti,
S19i;'.S}<i:air;1';'V1'1ago\2vda S/o.Devendragowda
Patilvv 1
" 'A:g_e: 44 years,
_ R»/d.'.Ma11asamudra,
85 Dist: Gadag.
' Smt.Pushpa W/ofifasant Kontey
Age: 34 years,
R/o.Nasa1apur, Tq: Raibag,
Dist: Belgaum.
9..
to
6. Smt.Padmavathi W/o.Parasappayya
Deshpande
Age: 58 years,
R/o.Hosur, Tq: 85 Dist: Gadag.
7. Smt.Shrikantbai W/o.Shanthinath . ._
Malladad p
Age: 55 years, v
R/o.Mal1asarnudra,
Tq: 85 Dist: Gadag. V V'
" _ 'Apvpe-v1.IVants.
(By Sri. S.P.Ku1karni, Advocate.)
AND:
Jainabi W/o.Sayyad Ibrahipm.s'aab='~., ._
Koppal _ 7
Age: Major, A
R/o.Gadag. * 2 .
' '_ Respondent.
(By Sri.Ja.y-akiJ.~ina'i'i:;:S.. Patil, 'A-émjcate.)
This"'._RS3A'is"fi'1-ed»l}t;!ppS,. 100 of cpc against the
Judgment and D'eci'e'e,_.d-ated 15/7/2002 passed in
R.A.No._11/2001' pa 7.t_.h"e" file of the District and
Sessions"J.udge',~._Gadag, dismissing the appeal and
:_'j'c'o'-nfir'-min,g.p «the "judgment and decree dated
'I3/9V",«'..1V98V5,pas.sed in O.S.No.115/1982 on the file
of' theg.Cix_;i'L_J"udge, Gadag.
This coming on for final hearing this
day, th"e..(3Qu'rt delivered the foliowingz
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the legal
D’ representatives of the original defendant in
i
M.
compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC
dated 25/2/2010 is filed. On behalf
appellants the power of attorney holder
the compromise petition. By theysaid it
is agreed that the appellants have
the sale deed dated 5/2/’rigors to 3 s ”
acres 20 guntas in RfS.Noy,.ou3v/_1″;..__”I’he”‘respondent
herein has given up “agreement of
sale for the bal.var1:c.e l and also
for the full The power of
attorney l1e0.ltiver;l;’7¥§:.;o.f “awpvpellants and the
respondent power of attorney holder
of the responclent before this Court who have
:_.’o’e.e_n i’:cl;’°er;tVifi.ed h’y’~–t–he respective learned counsel
parties. They agreed to the
lit’v….v.comp1’olrnis_elentered into between them. A perusal
.._lel’_j3.of”the corripromise petition does not indicate that
V,’c.olrnpryon1ise is contrary to law. Therefore the
‘co;rn_plromise is accepted by this Court.
e
‘-
3) In View of the compromise entered into
between the parties the right of the resp_Q..n_d_er1t
herein under the judgment and
13/9/1995 which was passed_by_7″the’_’:V.iiL:oWe1=L V
Appellate Court is affirmed onily
which sale deed has alreacijf”-beeni*~exe.cLitVed,j’an.d” in ” V
respect of the balance €Xt€’pI1.tVVV:A-ilpli”I§.Sii\iU»63.y;1 and
R.S.No.64/1 as mentioned. and
decree stands se4t”a_side”.w ‘ –
4) In the appeal is
disposed :bf. N’o~ojrdeiiirVas”‘t.o costs.
5) Thiet4__4i1*egVVistr§if” directed to draw the
decree term s of”-vthepcompromi se.