Karnataka High Court
Mohd Tajuddin S/O Mehaboob Sab Syed And ... vs Mohd Mastan Sab S/O Mehboob Sab Syed on 2 March, 2020
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WP No.204923/2016 (GM-CPC)
Between:
1. Mohd. Tajuddin S/o Mehaboob Sab Sayed,
Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Partapur, Taluka Basavakalyan,
Dist: Bidar-585401.
2. Mohd. Haji Sab S/o Tajuddin Syed,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Partapur,
Taluka Basavakalyan,
Dist: Bidar-585401.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Venkatesh C. Mallabadi, Advocate)
And:
Mohd. Mastan Sab S/o Mehboob Sab Syed,
Age: 75 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Partapur,
Taluka Basavakalyan,
Dist: Bidar-585401.
... Respondent
(By Sri. Sachin. M. Mahajan, Advocate)
2
This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to grant the following reliefs:
1. Quash the order dated 08.09.2016 passed in
Civil Misc.No.10/2016 on the file of Civil Judge,
Basavakalyan. The copy of which is at Annexure-F.
2. Issue any writ/ order has this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit in the facts and circumstance of the case and
in the interest of justice.
This petition coming on for preliminary in 'B' Group
this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER
Petitioners being the defendants in a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.69/2011 that has been since compromised are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 08.09.2016. A copy were of is at Annette-F, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Basavakalyan having favoured respondent's Civil Misc.No.10/2016 has corrected and amended the compromise decree, by amendment. 3
2. After service of notice, the respondent being the defendant in the said suit has entered appearance through his counsel and resists the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order, contending that the same is made for giving effect to the intent and content of the compromise.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court declines to grant indulgence in the mater because:
(a) There is no controversy as to the total measurement of the land in dispute i.e. 5 acres and 35 guntas. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are allotted 1 acre and the respondent is allotted 4 acres and 35 guntas; there exists a cart track admeasuring 15 guntas, in the land allotted to the respondent; this becomes clear by the description of Western boundary 4 which reads "Cart way and thereafter land of Tajuddin measuring about 1 acre".
(b) The above view is also strengthened by the note to para 1 of the Compromise Petition which mentions about the right of the respondent to use the PWD Road for the purpose of taking the bullock cart to his land. Thus, the 15 guntas are required to be left out from the land allotted to the respondent, as a cart-way, of course for the benefit of both the parties.
(c) With a view to give effect to this intent, paragraph 3 is incorporated in the compromise petition which specifically states that in the Revenue Registers, the name of respondent would figure only to the extent of 4 acres and 20 guntas as against 4 acres and 35 guntas granted to him; it needs to be clarified that the 15 guntas cart way, though belongs to the ownership of respondent for all practical purposes, has been retained 5 as a common way/path for taking the bullock cart and the cattle belonging to both the parties.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation, supra.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMP