Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Abdul Jaleel (Dead) vs Sufia Bi W/O Yakhoob Saheb (Dead) on 25 January, 2012

Author: Anand Byrareddy

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURTVGFi.KA'RNA'I§AKA AT
EANGALQRE,,%_
DATED THIS THE 2§§:;I"§F5g,g§gt0E_astJAN'su_ARY 2012

THE  §6%8n%DDY

. , €'.g7§AEv&
RE ¥'A fa? fATEPALbJ.1 OFZO 2
INI{F¢£fi%%F'&. 'Sf--a5j%_; 0 6 0

BETW$ENfVs,.%f
tfm&mtmka,a=

A geti about 60  '2.  . .  
S/0.Sye'd_MQhainmed; , 

Since deceasedaby his legal representatives,
1. Abdusi. Khaleely V

"aged.."ab0u.t 25 ye:i'rs','

  

twya¢HHmJHam
'2*gmEtmgfiy"

' ._§1g€d,8bO"u__t'22 years,
S.-'Q.A1t)du"1 J aleel,

     utmisa,
 , _ aged about 40 years,
 'Shamshad Begum,

aged about 34 years,



5. Saheen Taj,
aged about 30 years,

Appellant Nos.3 to 5 are
Daughters of Abdul J aleel and
Residing at No.1 l7,

(208), 9th Cross,  _

15' Main Road, Bapuji Nagar,--_V_l"~»..V_
Bangalore ~ 560 026.  l

6. Noorjahan,
D/o.Abdul J aleel,
Aged about 38 years,
W/o. Abdul Wajid,   . 
Residing at Vinigyaka Nagar:    is 
Wilson 'A    »
Bangalore; 027.'  s_  '

7. DissvadBeg11fm_, _  _
agediabout 36'yea1js;   H  -. '
W/o.l\ilVBabu,'._"   A
2" Crosss,«__l . A
Goiipet, A  '



1  81,3nit..Taj«u'1:n'i-sa;

= AW/o.Abd.ul lalleel, [Appellant No.2]
Residingat No.1 17, (208)
9"' Cross, 15' Main Road,

 .. ,Bapuj*i Nagar,

" .V_B"a_.ngalo1'e -- 560 026.

. . .APPELLANTS

 A [Amended as per order
dated l5.l l.2005]

(By Shri. K.S.Hareesha, Advocg)



AND:   2« " 
i LE5. R95 "?.""'*
1. Sufia Bi, Ema' by 0"  A. '-

W/o.Yal<hoob Saheb, ' "

A ed about 56 years,
2. ahaboob Pasha,

Aged about 27 years,   5
72/ algggaziakhvob     
Aged about 25"}/ears,   _  A

/ .L't Y .b--S  bi   ~ t
§e)sp(§ln?1en2t11._lVr1({)};?:»t1_tdi%§are 4%    

Residinggat    

1" Main Road,  C

9"' Criosis; B}ipujif;agair;~C'

Myso1'e._Road;. _p  g 

Bangalore --  
4. The Corn'mis'sioner,i*~._ A '

C_orporationV"of_VCity of Bangalore,
"Bangalore  """  ...RESPONDENTS

  Advocate for Caveator/Respondent Nos.

atoa     
Shi:i_7B.\'1..l\/liijralidhar, Advocate for Respondent No.4 )

>l<>'t<>I<>l<>l<

H  * '_  Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the
" of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree

dated 30.11.2001 passed in O.S.No.l23 l/l984 on the file of the

  __XXVlH Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall

5



Unit, Bangalore, partly decreeing the'.Vsuiit_i for 

permanent injunction.
N R.F.A.No. 16/2002

BETWEEN:

Smt. Shafia Bi,
W/o.Late Yakub Sab, _  i _ . B
Since deceased bylegalre.prese.nta.tives';"V V i
(a) Mahaboob Pasha;-  1:   
S/o.Late ab,  A _ 

Afied about 42 pyiears,  « 
(b)A aBal<sha;~-- 1;.  '

s/o:L'at¢=, 'Ya£<hul§f:~;Sab:;"ah" p
Aged about 42. 'y-f3,'.¢',li1*S'»_7 '  '  ._ '

Both a1'ei'esidi'ng"at' _  V
No._208, Bapuj.in'agai?, 

Jjff Main Road,_
Vim C;I'oss~, A.

A A ' --»BangaloreV¥. 560 026.

ll  Amended as' per order

. " . dated 'l0p;2.2006] . . .APPELLANTS

(B)iiil'Shiip5.S'§I:I.Hegde, Advocate for Legal representatives of

47 VA   Appellants)
" 

ii. Birnt. Zaina Bi @ Papamma,

[Respondent no.1 was dead



no legal representatives, are
brought on record as per the
order dated 25.22004]

2. Sri.Abdul J aleel,
S/o.Late Syed Mohammed, V

3. Srnt. Tajunnisa,
W/o.Sri.Abdul J aleel, 

Respondent Nos. 2 and"3l  *  ,

Are residing at gNo.ll7/HA,"   '

208, 9"' Cross.,.:l'M_ain;,_'i  V

Bapuji Nagar, 0 0  '    

Bangalore'iéiV560'-025.0   _    RESPONDENTS
(By Shrrli§'K;'S'.aHarees§ha, Ad§focate'"fo1" Respondent No.3
Respondent Nof27S'e_rlved'<»i.  -- 2

Respondent No.1  order dated 25.2.2004)

 Regi1ilar_l_3___i_rsit Appeal is filed under Section 96 of

 i"Cod'e of7CiVVi}..Pr0cedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree
 idatedg  passed in O.S.NO.36l9/1986 by the XIV

"'Additio"nal.,Cit.yCivil J udge, Bangalore City, dismissing the suit

file_d'by the appellant for declaration and possession.

"These Appeals are coming on for Hearing, this day, the

 "  court delivered the following:



JUDGMENT

The appellants and the respondents in these _ are present before the Court along withtheii' counse-l:avnd"ha1%e C filed a compromise petition which reads astfollov/si:'~_.i' " The Appellants and Biespiondentsiiiin_ the--i'iaboitv:e said case beg to subrnit as'.fo'lloAw:'s:-

1. It __is tliievviifkfpjpellants in R.F.A,.N'o~...1Vég'/.2003: haye.,i.C'hal.leinv§ed,,theifjudgment and dC:Cp"f'3\\\V. in the file of Adda.:1¢in;;:i,,1,ppctiyicivil' igdge, 'Bangalore City, for i1dl['.i'l€ld formdveclaration of title and possessioiiiiiiiiryrespect:of property, old No.ll8/B, new No.208 of Main Road, Guddadahalli
-- . extension',VV Bangalore. The Appellants in 3__,:R.E.A.Noflvl8./02 have challenged the judgment and vi wdecree, passed in os No.l23l/84 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, for v_ deoreeing the suit for declaration and permanent iijvinjunction against the appellants, in respect of "property old No.1 18A, new No.207 of Bapujinagar l Main Road, Guddadahalli extension, Bangalore.
2. It is submitted that, at the intervention of the well wishers, Appellants and Respondents in both the 5 7 cases have settled their dispute amicably in both the cases, as per the terms agreed here below:
1) The Respondents in RFA No.16/2002 do }:;'e}~ebyff7"'* 'A'. A admit the claim of the Appellants made in their' ' os No.36l9/86 and accordinglyizhadntittheiriright,' titre; ' and interest in the said suit schedule:-property' and in; V' pursuance of he same agree "for and adrnit for 'g_rarrtii;g_H a decree in favour of theV..Appellantls'-therein by allowing the said ~..appeal.""" lliiit,_t€fHL9l 51° this compromise petition! the' handed over the vacant po.sse:s_sion'andthe"key"lv--pei'taining to the of igthe; in their po;ss'e.~;si<_)n '-to lthel Ap-p_eV'Jla_nt "NO':' 1 (a) . » tr)' RF/$lNe.118/2002 do hereby withdi'a\qt}' and further admits and confirm that the decree passed by the Trial Court in ' V _ OS .ll~l0rAl'Z3'l/84.} challenged in the said appeal be :---unconfirmed 'against them in the above said appeal.
"Ac:,ordi__ngly, the appeal No.ll8/2002 may please be :°<:.rderl.e:(lV""to be dismissed 'as withdrawn' by the V. .apip'ellants.
viiii) That the Appellant No. l(a) in RFA No.16/2002 in l terms of this compromise petition, has this day paid a sum of Rs.l5 lakhs by way of cash to he respondents in the said appeal (Appellants in RFA No.1 l8/O2) and they also acknowledge the receipt of the said amount 2":
in the court while admitting the above compromise L"

petition.

iv) That the Respondents in Appellants in RFA No.ll8/O2 dolhereby confirmpandi it i admit that they have no manner of" right,_ tiitle interest over the suit schedule .propertie_siiin No. 123 1/84 and p_No.3'6'ilii9_/'Sb; the file half' City Civil Judge, Bangalore' Citylfandiiitiavefippellants in RFA No;.16/O2 :.Sll'El~1i. la}/iereaftperii peaceful posses_sion:.sand "enjoyni;ent"' oi":-l'the._...sluit schedule prCipertVi_e--s of both _ __ vy) 'l"hat"tlie_:,st1it s_c'hedule- property in OS No.l23l/84 Le."t*p:§pegg?§.'Vixxofaid No..1ll8/A, new No.207 of _ pBiapuj'inagar'f "I . Guddadahalli extension, Bangalore; shall" the absolute and exclusive ' " _ propieitypof'}Xppe",lant No.l(a) in RFA No.16/02 as he _alone hasisetdedv and made the payment towards the

-,_vlcornpr"or_riise petition and in which the Appellant l(b)iias no manner of right, title and interest. _vi)W.The parties have entered into this compromise {rafter it was read over, explained and understood by V 'them.

Wherefore, the Parties above named hereby pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment Z and decree in terms of the above;>'comlpro1:niise and further be pleased to dismiss itlxe 118./Qilpand '~ it allow the RFA No.16/O2io_n'the 51¢' "of this i%19n'~=j§1e--»w Court in the interest ofjusticie equityi i ii

2. Having regard toathe tenor"o.f thecomproniisje petition and the terms thereof, the bona fides of the petitioners, '_:§;orn1'r.»i'tii$rr1ise petition is allowed. and decree of the trial court, dirawupi the decree in terms of the comproi';nis--e petiitiointé it __

3. it is further' reeoprded that the appellants in RFA 16/2'QU2 have riovt/"handt2d "over a sum of Rs. 15.00 lakh, in cash i"*asi"t"ag1'e'e*d "upnder the terms of the compromise, to the . res.p_onder1ts,V ._ il'lie"_v»iapp.e1ilants in RFA 118/2002 have handed over the ke§I""to the suit property to the respondents. % IIV Ordered and decreed 10 accordingly.

rupes