Karnataka High Court
Devdatta S/O Late Chandrapal Patgi And ... vs Smt.Godavarabai W/O Late Rajendra And ... on 17 August, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.200184/2016
BETWEEN:
1. DEVDATTA S/O LATE CHANDRAPAL PATKI
AGE: 79 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: AURAD-B TQ: DIST; BIDAR.
2. SARVADHAR S/O DEVDATTA PATKI
AGE: 44 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: AURAD-B
TQ: DIST: BIDAR .....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.VINAYAK APTE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.GODAVARIBAI W/O LATE RAJENDRA
AGE: 70 YEARS OCC: PENSIONER
R/O: PROPER KALAMANURI
TQ: DIST: HINGOLI.
2. NARESH S/OLATE RAJENDRA
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: PROPER KALAMANURI
TQ & DIST: HINGOLI.
3. DINESH S/O LATE RAJENDRA
AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: PROPER KALAMANURI
TQ & DIST: HINGOLI.
4. YOGEHS S/O LATE RAJENDRA
AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS
TQ & DIST: HINGOLI.
2
5. SAMIDHA D/O LATE RAJENDRA
AGE: 43 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O: PROPER KALAMANURI
TQ & DIST: HINGOLI.
6. JYOTHI D/O LATE RAJENDRA
AGE: 42 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O: PROPER KALAMANURI
TQ & DIST: HINGOLI.
7. SHANTABAI W/O NARSINGRAO
AGE: 80 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O: PROPER CHINCHOLI
DIST: KALABURAGI.
8. SHAKUNTALABAI W/O SIDDESHWAR
AGE: 77 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O: VILLAGE DEGALMADI TQ: CHINCHOLI
DIST: KALABURAGI.
9. SULOCHANABAI W/O RAMRAO
AGE: 73 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O: PROPER SALIGALLI
DIST: LATUR MAHARASTRA.
10. SATYAKALABAI W/O RAMSING
AGE: 55 YEARS OCC: HOUSHOLD
R/O: PATHAK GALLI BIDAR
TQ & DIST: BIDAR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH YERGOL, ADV, FOR R1 TO 6,
APPEAL AGAINST R7 TO 10 IS DISMISSED V/O
DATED: 17.08.2017)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF CPC PRAYING THIS
COURT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN TERMS OF
COMPROMISE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Notice to be issued in respect of respondents is dispensed with, as Sri.Ramesh Yergol, learned counsel has filed Vakalat for respondents No.1 to 6. The respondent No.3 is representing the respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6. The respondent No.3 is present before the Court. A Special Power of Attorney given in favour of respondent No.3 by respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6 is also produced. The appellant No.2 who is no other than the son of Appellant No.1 is present before the Court. The learned counsel for the appellants is also present before the Court. The appellant No.2 is representing appellant No.1 by way of Special Power of Attorney executed by Appellant No.1 which is also furnished before this Court.
2. The parties have entered into compromise. The memo filed for disposal of the appeal against the respondents No.7 to 10. Therefore, the appeal is 4 dismissed as against the respondents No.7 to 10. The compromise entered into between the appellants as well as respondents No.1 to 6 is not binding on the respondents No.7 to 10.
3. The appellants and respondents No.1 to 6 have filed compromise petition by way of amicable settlement in respect of suit schedule A and B properties on certain terms. On perusal of the said compromise petition there is no impediment to record the compromise. The parties are present as noted above and admitted the execution of compromise petition. They have also forfeited compromise entered into between them before the Court.
In pursuance of the above compromise the appeal is disposed off as prayed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ