Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for respondent No.1, 2 and 20 to 23.

2. This second appeal is filed against the order of the First Appellate Court. This matter was heard in length and this Court even appointed a fresh Court Commissioner and the Court Commissioner has furnished a sketch before this Court after surveying the land and inspite of the same, the dispute is not solved.

3. Now, the parties themselves have settled the matter as suggested by the Court and the issue is only with regard to road leading to the property i.e., plot Nos.1 and 2 and there was shortfall of road to go to plot No.2 and the same is the major portion of the property which belongs to the family. Now, the parties have come up with a settlement that, in addition to the road which has already been formed by owner of plot No.1, the owner of plot No.2, parties have also agreed to form a road in respect of portion of the property which was allotted to them to go to his property and both the roads would NC: 2025:KHC:48605 HC-KAR be for common usage. Hence, in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, now it becomes common entrance for both the owners of plot Nos.1 and 2 and each of the parties have no objection to form the road and they have also undertaken that either of them will not cause any hurdle for usage of common entrance from the main road either to go to plot No.1 or to plot No.2. The owner of plot No.1 has also agreed to leave 2 feet length and width of space, in order to reach the plot No.2 connecting the common entrance to expand the area and owner of plot No.2 has agreed that in lieu of leaving the space of 2 feet length and width to owner of plot No.1, the said space will be compensated by giving the same on the other side of the property, that means, the plot will be readjusted in view of this arrangement between the parties and no dispute with regard to the said fact.

4. Now the parties have prepared a rough sketch and the same is produced before the Court and common entrance in respect of both plot Nos.1 and 2 is shown in 'yellow' colour in the sketch prepared by the parties and these changes are only between the owners of plot Nos.1 and 2. The owners of plot NC: 2025:KHC:48605 HC-KAR Nos.3 and 4 are also happy with the arrangement between the owners of plot Nos.1 and 2 and the owners of plot Nos.3 and 4 have also agreed to abide by the order passed by the First Appellate Court and also the FDP Court. The owner of plot No.3 also to remove the shed which is in existence in the place of common entrance which is shown in 'yellow' colour in the rough sketch and should not cause any hurdle for formation of common entrance to plot Nos.1 and 2. In view of this compromise between parties, the rough sketch which is shown in 'yellow' colour becomes the part and parcel of this order to make it clear with regard to the terms of the compromise between the parties. It is made it clear that none of the parties should cause any obstruction for usage of each plot which belongs to Smt. Jayanthi Bhaskar Rao, plot No.2 which belongs to Sri B. Devaraj, plot No.3 which belongs to Smt. Susheela and plot No.4 which belongs to Smt. Prema in future.

5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that owner of plot No.1 has already removed the trees which were in the passage which they have already sold and the owner of plot No.2 should not raise any objection to the same and even

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48605 HC-KAR the owner of plot No.1 also should not raise any objection while forming the common entrance in the property allotted to the owner of plot No.2 for removing the trees and disposal of the same. The owner of plot Nos.3 and 4 also shall not claim any right over of common entrance leading to plot Nos.1 and 2 and they are not having any right to claim the same.