High Court Karnataka High Court

Pundalik Basappa Savalabagi @ … vs Bhemappa Basavathappa Talwar on 25 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Pundalik Basappa Savalabagi @ … vs Bhemappa Basavathappa Talwar on 25 March, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath And Malimath

1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT’A§{–.¥§JV’: ”

CIRCUIT BENCH AT D¥iARW_z’–& i§–…VV V A

DATED THIS ‘THE 25m pin’ «:1»? }?JI A,}2′:f_};I~i..:f3€3i},;§’ ‘T

PRES~ENT”‘%%%MM'” V .A V.

THE HON ‘BLE L.’%§4k2;NJQf1~zAkm
_ %
THE} HC}i*3’1§LE:.Ivi§é.JiJéTiQfii’§§%§fE’MALIMATH
Q
Sam. FUE§V§}ki;}é§BAi§AI?F’§ sAvALABAG: GGKAV1
AGE:M.AJQR,._OC:C:AGRI€;3ULTURIST

R/O MALLUR,’ sAxiA1§’:3ATH1TALUK,

8§:m§AU:{:i 2 w ~ APPELLANT

” .433; K.%»:,.PAT:M:«& SR1. ARAVINQ.D.KULI{ARNi,
é

%’ ‘ ‘A\i*.*”~’~\:\’E§V ” ” A

S1a;R i;~:.BHEMAPPA BASAVATHAPPA TALWAR,

= ~ .;s.GE;MA30I2
” , _ {)’CC:AGRICULTUF€§S’1’,
. gaze KASAVI KUPPA,
BAKHQNCEAL ‘I’ALUK,

BELGAUM . El . RESPGNEENT

(By ‘SR1. RA\II.S.BALiKAi, ADV.)

THIS RFA IS FILED £318. 96 OF CPC.4jAGAi§I$VNT
THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE m’. 30.11;<}~9.A'PAeSSED

1N C).S.NO. 39/96 BY THE CIVIL
BAELHONGAL, DISMISSING THE SUI'I.'~–B'Q'RV SPECIFEQ,

ETC.

PERFORMANCE FOR AGREEMENT’ ;C)§f. fsA:.E,..1′.ANeD’e«

THIS APPEAL COMING 01$-RCR r3eRAR:1s;G§M1T:»RSe»

DAY, MANJUNATH J., DELDQERD ‘FHE’FQLL{)WING:
At the iI1teI’vemieI_1 ‘ the matter is

settled hetxzgfeefi-.i;I1egipazfitiesfi a compromise

appliesitieéeiiris ‘iS*si§r1ed by both the parties
and The parties confirm the

exeeutio;r.’1~»of t.he~.C6:}1pfomise. They have been identified

‘ V’ by{th,eir respeetiveédvocates.

._ and final settlement of the ciajm 01′ the

the appellant has ageed te receive ._a sum of

;f€3«.’1,§?O,{}f}0/– in four equal installments. The 15*

if1eta}hnent shaft} be pads} on 25.9.2009, ‘lad insizallment

” on 25.3.2010, 3rd installment on 25.9.2010 and the last

anti final installment shall be yaid on 25.3.2011. It is

R’?

further ageed, if any one of the

on the due date, the appeilant is at Vvt§§.::exeeufe,V»

this decree for recovery of the e:g1fi1je’fdrt13x§.%Vit3t1e.’:’

3. In View ef the ee”tt1emer1t.. é;t’,’ kit the

intervention of the is ‘entitleci for

refund 0:” full court reg.

The Regstry is
directed of the compromise.

Sdf-s
Judge

Sd/+5
Iudg”é’

” V V *e.2,1b.