Loading...

Sri Gurulingappa Mahalingappa … vs Sri Mallappa S/O Dundappa … on 22 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Gurulingappa Mahalingappa … vs Sri Mallappa S/O Dundappa … on 22 February, 2010
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED Tms THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUAR\{.,._.;£_AC}:'1dd;~ 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE§;AC.CS'.' BoP»ANgNA.._;"V"__ 

R.S.A mo. 4>64/2608..

BETWEEN:

Aged: 53 years, Occ: Ag'i'«ie1.11t.urfeg
R/0. Sanganatti, Tq: Mudhoif' 1
Dist: Bagalkot -- 587  " ''

Sri.Guru1ingappa Maha'1i~~ngapC'}daA Njgaglantoor C  

       Appellant.
(By Sfi.V.M.S_hv6f;41EE:AY8_'nth.',_.AQVQC3§te.)

1_°l...N,...I.2_3. .... ..
Sri.Ma11a}:1pa_ S/o'.'D'-ur1datpg}5'a Naganoor
Aged: 39 years, Og:c":._:A.gr~igo'u3:ture,
R/o.Sanganat_tit,VTq:_ 1\riu"dlr1_;o1,
Dist: Baga1kot~--'S8_'F. 3"1_3."

5 V as   Respondent.

,*'('By_Srie..:C':J.:K.Pruran'it';""Sharad R. Shindhe, Mahesh B.

'PVati1',.Adv_o e¢a.t4e's_.V)

  is filed U/S. 100 of CPC against the

 Jeudgme'nt"--.Var'zd Decree dated 25/10/2007 passed in
fj-..R_.'A,.No.10./G4 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge
4.._u'{S'1*.,VI3ne...]_, Jdsarnakhandi, sitting at Mudhol, dismissing
 _app'1eal filed against the Judgment and Decree
 da~ted 20/12/2003 passed in O.S.No.332/2001 on
file of the Pr1.Civi1 Judge {Jr.Dn.), Mudho}.

This appeal coming on for orders this day, the

 Court delivered the following:

e

.9



txil

JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the plaintif;i:”f”–«in.iA’

O.S.No.332/2001 on the file of the

(Jr.Dn.), Mudhol. The suit in .qtue.stio_nlliVVlW:é§$l.ifil_§:id’e’.,e

seeking for Judgment and

performance of agreement
had Opposed the co,.34.ilentito–n::;”frT1136 .l’l”rial,f§Court
ultimately by its dated
20/ 12/ 2003 disrni s._sedf’tl:e1:ji lplllaintniff was
therefore Court in
R.A.No.1of2’C{i§tiron’ii-3t’he’jl.Vfilve Addl. Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.}, Mudhol. The Lower

Appellate the findings of the Trial

:_vC’o..1_1Art”———the appeal on 25/10/2007. The

plapinwtliiff is before this Court in this Regular

Since the parties have settled the

thegre is no need to consider as to whether

lifsjany substantial question of law.

if __52] In that light it is seen that the parties filed

application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC before

” this Court indicating that they had settled the

Lu!

matter. By said compromise petition the
defendant/respondent had admitted the receipt of
the entire consideration and had agreed to execute’.
the sale deed pursuant to the agreem__e.nt__&da’ted”f*,’
27/8/1999. The compromise petition
record and the matter was referred
center. The parties had appearedfbefore__’.i:tihe ‘mvedihatorh
and the agreement of the comprorn’iseA*.pyy?v3;s
Since the defendant/resp’onde:1’t'”.~has’._?;apArVee:d:’r’i’to
execute the sale deed,:_th–leK
in terms of the dated
20/12/2003 passed’ Pr1.Civi1 Judge
(Jr.Dn.), »~4i::iQr.n.4S.:No.33?/200I and the
dudgmpegnit adate”c1.._:i:éi5/E0/2007 in R.A.No.10/2004
‘t1}f%i’i.i:Apth:e’«–._learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
at Mudhol, are set aside.

VV’.–~kiConsecj:uen..t1.y.iA:’ithe suit in O.S.No.332/2001 stands
‘The defendant is directed to execute the
in respect of the suit schedule property
to the agreement of sale dated 27/8/1999

i°*._3a’nd in terms of the compromise. In the event of the

I2,

‘1

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information