Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 19959
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA, J
KRISHNA S/O. GULESH RANOJI – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.104514/2023(KLR-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI V P VADAVI
For the Respondents: SRI P.N.HATTI, SRI HARSHA DESAI, SRI M.B.PUJAR, SRI J.S.SHETTY
The court upheld the enforceability of amicable settlement agreements between parties in property disputes, recognizing the importance of mutual consent and compromise to resolve legal issues.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Civil Procedure Code - Order XXIII Rule 3 - Settlement of disputes - The parties reached an amicable compromise regarding property disputes, with detailed terms and mutual acknowledgment from involved parties on agreements and financial arrangements - Court accepted the compromise and settled the writ petition accordingly. (Paras 1, 6, 7)
(B) Compromise Agreement - Legal validity of the compromise agreements regarding property ownership and consideration paid for transferring interests in property was acknowledged in the court proceeding, reiterating amicably settled transactions enforceable in law. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner and several respondents, including Laxman, Srinivas, and Farukh, reached a compromise regarding agricultural land, with details of ownership transfer and financial settlements acknowledged in court. The rights were relinquished towards amicable settlement between parties.
Findings of Court:
The compromise was duly accepted and recorded, allowing the petitioner to retain ownership with no further claims from the respondents.
Issues: The core issues revolved around the legitimacy of claims and ownership in property transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of compromising agreements in resolving disputes amicably, thus settling the writ petition based on mutual acceptance of terms by all parties.
Result: Writ petition disposed off in terms of the compromise petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute regarding property was amicably settled. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. terms of the compromise regarding property transfers were detailed. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court satisfied with the terms of the compromise. (Para 6) |
| 4. writ petition disposed off based on compromise terms. (Para 7) |
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.4, 5 and 6 submit in unison that the dispute between the parties is amicably settled and the compromise petition is signed by all parties concerned is filed before this Court under order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code and article 226 of the Constitution of Indian.
2. The petitioner-Krishna S/o Gulesh Ranoji, respondent No.4-Laxman S/o Fakirappa Kadappanavar, respondent No.5-Srinivas S/o Shrikant Ghotnekar and respondent No.6-Farukha S/o Jafarsab Killedar @ Mulla, are personally present before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsels. Petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have admitted the terms of compromise petition and that they have signed the compromise petition out of their own will and would abide by the same.
3. The terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties read as under:
“Herein, the Petitioner and Resp. Nos. 4, 5 & 6 have mutually agreed to compromise and settle the dispute in the presence of elders as under:
1. That the Suit property is the agriculture land originally bearing Block/Sy. No. 300, measuring 04A - 27G, assessed at Rs. 16.70 Ps, situated at Kamalapur village, Dharwad Bounded by East : Sy. No. 297, 298 & 299 West : Sy. No. 308 North : Sy. No. 301 South: Road.Now presently the Suit property is sub divided into Block/Sy.No.300/1 measuring 2A-27G Bounded by East : Block No. 297, 298 & 299 West : Sy. No. 308 North : Sy. No. 301 South : Sy. No. 300/2 AND Block/Sy. No. 300/2 measuring 2A-00G Bounded by East : Block No. 298 West : Sy. No. 308 North : Sy. No. 300/1 South: Road.
2. That the entire Suit property Block/Sy. No. 300 measuring 4A-27G was originally owned by the father of Resp. No. 6, afterwards it has been transferred in the name of Resp. No.6. On 13-11-2013 the said Resp. No. 6 has executed a registered GPA infavor of Resp. No.5 Shri Shrinivas S/o. Shrikanth Ghotnekar, afterwards on 03-09- 2014 the GPA holder has executed a registered sale deed in his own name by paying sale consideration amount of Rs. 28,05,000/- to Resp. No. 6. The name of the purchaser has entered in the records of the property.
3. The said purchaser Resp. No.5 Shri Shrinivas S/o. Shrikanth Ghotnekar has sold the original Suit property to Resp. No.4 Shri. Laxman Fakkirappa Kadappanavar on 08- 05-2015 through registered sale deed by receiving consideration of Rs. 33,66,000/-. The name of the purchaser has entered in the records of the property. This transaction was known to Resp. No.6.
4. After the entry of the name of the purchaser Resp. No.4 Laxman Fakkirppa Kadappanavar in the record of the original Suit property Resp. No.6 has filed OS No. 443/2014 Before the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Dharwad by praying the Hon'ble Court to declare that Resp. No.6 is the absolute owner of the Suit property by holding that the sale deed dtd: 03-09-2014 and 08-05-2015 are not binding on him. The both the purchasers did not file their written statement. Hence, the Hon'ble Court was please to decree the Suit on 31-03-2017.
5. That the second purchaser Resp. No.4 Laxman Fakkirppa Kadappanavar has preferred RA No. 20025/2017 before The II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad and same came to be dismissed on 26-07-2018. After that the said purchaser has preferred an Misc. No. 60/2018 Before the Hon'ble Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad and the same came to be dismissed on 10-03-2020, in the mean while the present Resp. No.6 has executed a consent deed (MIàUÉ ÀvÀæ) On 14-10-2019 infavor of Resp. No.4 Laxman Fakkirppa Kadappanavar stating that he has consented for the sale deed executed by the first purchaser Resp. No.5 Shri. Shrinivas S/o. Shrikanth Ghotne
