Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.G.S.Kamal
Ramappa S/o. Tamanna Teli – Appellant
Versus
Dhareppa S/o. Gualingappa Teli – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.G.S. Kamal, J.
1. The parties are present and have filed a compromise petition. Terms of the Compromise petition are as under:
“Compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code
The appellants and the respondents No.1 to 6, respectfully submit as under:
1. The appellants herein have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 17-7-2019 passed by the First Additional District and Session Judge Bagalkot sitting at Jamkhandi in R.A. No.64/2010, reversing the judgment and decree dated 5-1-2010 passed in O.S No.17/1990, by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jamkhandi.
2. The appellants herein have filed a suit in O.S No.17/1990 on the file of Civil Judge Jamakhandi At: Jamakhandi for partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share in the suit schedule 'A' to 'D' properties. In the said suit they have contended that one Sangappa - was the propositus of the Family and the defendant No.1 in the suit. The Sangappa had two male children namely Gurulingappa-defendant No.3 and Tammanna- the defendant No.9 and one daughter namely Bouravva Sangappa Kadapatti- who was arrayed as the defendant No.2 (a), in the said suit. The 1st appellant-
A compromise between parties, if accepted by the court, is binding and results in the cessation of claims while outlining property rights and financial settlements.
The court upheld the voluntary compromise between parties regarding partition claims and confirmed the modification of the decree, emphasizing the absence of coercion and mutual satisfaction with the....
The court confirmed that a compromise in a partition case is valid if voluntarily entered without coercion, facilitating expedient resolution through final decree proceedings.
Parties may settle disputes amicably through a lawful compromise, which is accepted by the court.
Settlement of property disputes via compromise is valid under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, affirming the parties' mutual consent and withdrawal of appeals.
The court validates a compromise petition concerning family property, affirming the agreement's binding nature on all parties involved, which leads to the final decree.
A binding compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure prevents parties from raising further claims related to the settled issues.
When they are not shown to be in any manner perverse, illogical and irrational, resultantly, the substantial questions of law formulated are accordingly answered infavour of the plaintiff and against....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
