1 CAF 108.22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CIVIL APPLICATION [CAS] NO.108 OF 2022

IN

SECOND APPEAL [S.A.] NO.42 OF 2012

[Anil Pundlikrao Meghe since deceased through L.Rs. .vs. Prabhakar s/o Shyamrao Manikkule and

others]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders

appearances, Court's orders of directions

and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. D.R. Bhoyar, Advocate for appellants,

Mr. R.R. Dhawad, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4.

……….

C oram

: Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.

Re

served on

: 04.02.2022.

Pronounced on : 09.02.2022

.

Hearing was conducted through video

conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the

audio and visual quality was proper. The parties were

identified by their respective counsels.

2.

The present application is filed by appellant

i.e. legal representatives of original defendant no.1 and

respondents–original plaintiff nos.1 to 4 jointly under

Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for

passing of compromise decree.

3.

In pursuance to the agreement executed

between parties on 25.10.2021, the present application

is moved jointly. The copy of mutual agreement placed

on record.

2 CAF 108.22.odt

4.

Respondent nos.1 to 4 are original plaintiffs,

who filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated

13.02.1990 executed by deceased Dadarao Manikkule

in the capacity of power of attorney holder of

respondent nos.1 to 4. The said suit came to be

decreed on 07.09.2009, wherein joint Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Wardha held that since the power of

attorney executed by the respondent nos.1 to 4

(original plaintiffs) dated 04.01.1990 was already

withdrawn by issuing notice dated 20.06.1989 which

was also published in the daily local newspaper, said

deceased Shri Dadarao Manikkule had no any authority,

right or power to execute the sale deed dated

13.02.1990. Accordingly, the sale deed dated

13.02.1990 was set aside and declared the same as null

and void. Original defendant no.1 filed appeal before

District Judge, Wardha, the same came to be dismissed

and judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial

Court came to be confirmed.

5.

Being aggrieved by the said order, defendant

no.1 filed the present appeal. During the pendency of

this Second Appeal, appellant–original defendant no.1

expired. His legal heirs were brought on record. Shri

Bhaurao Manikkule also expired on 30.05.2019 and his

legal representatives also brought on record. The

parties i.e. legal representatives of appellant and

respondent nos.1 to 4 arrived at amicable settlement

3 CAF 108.22.odt

and executed an agreement dated 25.10.2021. So far

as respondent nos.5 to 9 are concerned, they are legal

representatives of deceased Dadarao Manikkule, who

was the power of attorney holder of respondent nos.1

to 4. However, by the judgment and decree passed by

the courts below, the said impugned sale deed dated

13.02.1990 came to be set aside as the power of

attorney executed by legal representatives of Shamrao

(respondent nos. 1 to 4) was already revoked by the

plaintiff before the execution of impugned sale deed.

Thus, they are not the main contesting party, but merely

proper parties in the suit. They did not contest the suit,

except filing written statement in the line of written

statement filed by defendant no.1.

6.

Through video conferencing, I have verified

the facts and contents in terms of compromise from the

parties and I am satisfied that the terms of compromise

are in the intere