Karnataka High Court
Narayana S/O Bhimappa Badiger vs Nekar Samaj Bilagi on 31 March, 2022
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31 s t DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
R.S.A.NO.5152/2008 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN
1 . NARAYANA S/O BHIMAPPA BADI GER
AGE: 62 YEARS, R/O BILAGI ,
DIST: BAGALK OT.
2 . MOHAN S/O BHIM APPA BADIGER
AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O BILAGI ,
DIST: BAGALK OT.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
2a. SMT.SHANTABI W/O MOHAN BADIGER,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O BI LAGI , DIST: BAGALKOT.
2b. DEVENDRA S/O M OHAN BADI GER,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
R/O BI LAGI , DIST: BAGALKOT.
2c. RAMESH S/O MOHAN BADIGER,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
R/O BI LAGI , DIST: BAGALKOT.
2d. SMT.SHASHIKALA W/O PRABHAKAR PATTAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BIJAPUR.
2e. SHRIKANT S/O MOHAN BADIGER,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
2
R/O BI LAGI ,
NOW AT SAKALESHPUR.
2f. SMT.DRAXYANI W/O MAHADEV KAMBAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BARAGANAHALLI,
TQ: BIJAPUR,
NOW AT NASIK , M AHARASHTRA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B MANE, ADV. FOR A1;
APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST A2)
AND
1 . NEKAR SAMAJ BILAGI,
BY ITS CHAIRMAN
SRI CHANDRAKANT NEELKANTAPPA KOTI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O BI LAGI .
2 . NEKAR SAMAJ BILAGI,
BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI BASAVANTHAPPA SHIVAPPA SANKANATTI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O BI LAGI , DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K .S.PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.07.2008 PASSED
IN R.A.NO.12/2005 ON T HE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.),
BILAGI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.02.2002 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.130/2000 ON THE FI LE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.),
BILAGE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPL ICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT ,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This is defendants appeal challenging judgment and decree dated 10.07.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bilagi in R.A. no. 12/2005, dismissing appeal and confirming judgment and decree dated 02.02.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bilagi in O.S. no.130/2000.
2. Both learned counsel submit that during pendency of this appeal parties have entered into compromise which reads as follows:
" 1. ©Ã¼ÀV ¥ÀlÖ t zÀ ªÁqÀð £ÀA.4 gÀ°è g ÀĪÀ D¹Û £ÀA.1144/1/2133/1 F D¹Û A iÀÄÄ ¥ÀƪÀð-¥À²Ñ ª ÀÄ: 72 ¥s À Æl GvÀÛ g À-zÀQë t : 13 1/2 ¥s À Æl F D¹Û U É ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥Àæ P ÀgÀtzÀ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀ£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ 1] PÀıÁ® 2]ªÀiÁ®w¨Á¬Ä vÀA.£ÁgÁAiÀÄt §rUÉÃgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ªÀiÁ°Ìà PÀ¨ÁÓ ªÀ»ªÁnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛ g É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ M¦à P ÉƼÀÄî v ÁÛ g É.
2. ªÉÄïÁÌt ¹ zÀ D¹Û A iÀÄ°è ¥ÀƪÀð ¢QÌUÉ EgÀĪÀ ¥ÀƪÀð- ¥À²Ñ ª ÀÄ: 9 ¥s À Æl GvÀÛ g À-zÀQë t : 8 ¥s À Æl C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ PÀnÖ A iÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ©Ã¼ÀV ¥ÀlÖtzÀ UËj eÁvÁæ GvÀì ª À PÀ«ÄÃnAiÀĪÀgÀÄ UËj ºÀÄtÂ Ú ª ÉÄAiÀÄ ¤«ÄvÀå ªÀÄÄAavÀ 5 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® UËj GvÀì ª ÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæ ª ÀÄzÀ CAUÀªÁV UËj ªÀÄÆwðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆr¹ UËj 4 eÁvÉæ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ 5 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® GvÀì ª À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw vÀAmÉ-vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÁ M¦à P Éƽî v ÁÛ £ É.
3. ªÉÄïÁÌt ¹ zÀ D¹Û U É ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ UËj ºÀÄtÂ Ú ª ÉÄAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÉêÀ® 5 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁAiÀÄðPÀæ ª ÀÄPÉÌ ªÀiÁvÀæ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæ ª ÀÄ DZÀj¸À®Ä JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀAmÉ- vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÁ M¦à P ÉƼÀÄî v ÁÛ g É. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀgÀ D¹Û A iÀÄ°è (PÀnÖ A iÀÄ°è ) JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw PÀlÖ q À ªÀUÉÊgÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÁ M¦à P ÉƼÀÄî v ÁÛ g É.
4. ªÉÄïÁÌt ¹ zÀ D¹Û U É ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ FvÀ£À ªÀÄPÀ̼Á 1]PÀıÁ® 2] ªÀiÁ®w¨Á¬Ä EªÀgÀÄ UËj ºÀÄtÂÚ ª ÉÄAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 5 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ G½zÀ ¢£ÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ªÀiÁ°Ì PÀ¨ÁÓ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛ g É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀ»ªÁlÄ G¥À¨s É ÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÀPÀÄ̼Àî ª ÀgÁVgÀvÁÛ U É C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ M¦à P ÉƼÀÄî v ÁÛ g É.
5. ªÉÄïÁÌt ¹ zÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀgÀ PÀmÉÖ U É ºÉÆA¢ CAzÀgÉ ¥ÀƪÀð ¢Q̤AzÀ ¥À²Ñ ª ÀÄ ¢QÌ£À PÀqÉUÉ 9 ¥s À ÆnUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀÄ QlQ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÁV®Ä ºÀaÑ P ÉƼÀî ® Ä JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw vÀAmÉ-vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÁ M¦à P ÉƼÀÄî v ÁÛ g É.
6. ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜUÉÆøÀÌgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è A iÀÄ, J®è ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ PÀÆr £ÀqÉAiÀįÁgÀzÀ PÁgÀt ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.10.2020 gÀAzÀÄ zÁªÁ D¹Û A iÀÄ£ÀÄß C¥À¸Ávï ªÁnß ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀgÀ ªÁnß ¥ÀvÀæ z À ¥Àæ P ÁgÀ zÁªÁ D¹Û A iÀÄ°è zÀQë t ¨s Á UÀzÀ 1/2 »¸Éì EzÀgÀ C¼ÀvÉ: ¥ÀƪÀð-¥À²Ñ ª ÀÄ 72 5 ¥s À Æl, GvÀÛ g À-zÀQë t 13 1/2 D¹Û A iÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¥Àæ P ÀgÀtzÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ RjâPÉÆnÖ z ÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀgÀ Rjâ ¥Àæ P ÁgÀ zÀQë t ¨s Á UÀzÀ 1/2 »¸Éì U É JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ªÀiÁ°Ìà PÀ¨ÁÓ ºÉÆA¢zÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛ g É C£ÀÄߪÀzÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ M¦à P ÉƼÀÄî v ÁÛ g É.
7. zÁªÁ D¹Û A iÀÄ°è G½zÀ 1/2 »¸Éì A iÀÄ°è GvÀÛ g À ¨s Á UÀzÀ D¹Û A iÀÄ C¼ÀvÉ: ¥ÀƪÀð-¥À²Ñ ª ÀÄ 72 ¥s À Æl, GvÀÛ g À-zÀQë t 13 1/2 D¹Û U É ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀ£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ 1]PÀıÁ® 2]ªÀiÁ®w¨Á¬Ä vÀA.£ÁgÁAiÀÄt §rUÉÃgÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ªÀiÁ°Ìà PÀ¨ÁÓ ºÀA¢zÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛ g É C£ÀÄߪÀzÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ M¦à P ÉƼÀÄî v ÁÛ g É."
3. Learned counsel for respondents has filed a memo stating that earlier Chairman of respondent no.1 is dead and respondent no.1 is represented by its present Chairman, who is present. Respondent no.2- Secretary is present.
4. Since appellant no.1 is stated to be suffering from paralysis, he appeared through video conference. He was identified by learned counsel for both parties. His son Kushal N. Badiger, who was present in court to affirm consent as appellant no.1 is unable to be present in court personally and speak.
6
5. The parties have stated they have read and understood the terms of compromise and have entered into compromise out of their own free will, without any threat, coercion or undue influence from anybody and pray for disposal of appeal in terms of compromise.
6. I have perused the terms of compromise. They are lawful and in best interest of parties.
7. Compromise petition is accepted. Appeal is disposed of to the extent and in terms of compromise petition.
8. Registry to draw decree incorporating terms of compromise.
9. In view of above compromise, I.A.no.1/2010 is rendered unnecessary.
SD/-
JUDGE KGK