The High Court · 2025

2. Smt.P. Shakunthala, Wo late P. Narsing Rao, Aged 50 years occ house wife, R/o H.No. 1-4-271711185, Padmashali colony, Ranga nagar,Musheerabad (M) Hyderabad

3. Smt. P. Soni, D/o late P. Narsing Rao, Wo T.Nagesh aged 28 years, Occ house wife R/o H No.10-4-tu402, Addagutta, Secunderabad

4. P. Kanchana @ lVlani, D/o late P. Narsing Rao, Aged 26 years occ house hold, R/o H.No. 1-4-271711185, Padmashali colony, Ranganagar, Musheerabad (M) Hyderabad AND APPELLANTS lN l.A.Nos.1 & 2

1. Smt. P. Rukkamma,, Wo. Late P. Vittal Rao, Household, Rlo.11181297l51 , Tana.jinagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad.

2. Smt J. Bhagyalakshmi,, Wo. J. Balakishan, Housewife, R/o. Flat No.202, Narayanadri Nivasam, 16 and 17, Godulnagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. 3. Smt. D. Vasantha @ Lakshmibai,, Wo. D. Mallesh, Hosuewife, R/o. H.No. 1- 49/21, Street No. 10, Suryanagar Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad.

4. Sri S. Pentaiah,, S/o. Dattadri, Business, R/o. Shop at 1-4-27171/185, Padmashali Colony, Ranganagar, ltrlushirabad tvlandal, Hyderabad.

5. M/s. Rajkamal Tent House Rep by its Proprietor, Sri N. Ja Pochaiah Yadav, IVlulgi at premises bearing No. 1-4-27171 Colony, Ra ngan agar, IVI ush irabad [v1andal, Hyderabad o an Yadav, S/o. N. 185, Padmashali (Appeal against RR 1 & 3 dismissed for default vide C O , d1.23.3.2017) (Appeal against R-5 dismissed as abatted vide C.O., dL23.3.2017) RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 2,3.4. & 5 lN l.A.Nos.1 & 2 l.A. NO: 1OF 2011(SAMP. NO:888 OF 2011) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of Judgment decree passed in OS No. 203312004, dl. 12-2- 2008 on the file of Learned V Sr. Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in AS No. 149/2008, dt2'12-2010 on the file of X Addl. Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad pending disposal of second appeal. lA NO: 'f OF 2025 Petition under Order XXlll Rule 3 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree in the present S.A No.355 of 2011 as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the present memorandum of compromise, by setting aside judgment and decree passed in A.S No.149 of 2008 d1.02-12- 2010 by learned X Addi. Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) by dismissing the O.S No.2033 ol 2004 dt 12-02-2008 passed by learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the respo ndents/defenda nts No.2&3 to enter into the compromise as per the terms and conditions of the memorandum of compromise dated 09-09-2025, and pass the conrpromise decree as per the terms and conditions of the said memorandum of compromise in the present S.A. No.355 of 2011, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: PRAVEEN VYAPARI The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2025 IN/AND SECOND APPEAL No.355 oF 2O11 COMMON JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal is liled aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.l49 of 2OO8 by the X Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 02.12.2O1O, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2008 in O.S.No.2033 of 2OO4 passed by V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hvderabad.

2. O.S.No.2033 of 2OO4 came to be filed before V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, for partition and separate possession in respect of housc bearing No.l-4-27 /71i 185, Padmashali Coion1,, Ranganagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Suit came to be decreed on 12.O2.2OOB. Defendar.rt No.1 in suit is the appellant in Second Appeal. Late respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in the suit. Legai heirs of respondent No. i are on record in the Second Appeal. Respondent No.4 is the tenant, who is no more. I I ,) JAK, J sA I5_i 201I Respondent No.5 is also tenant, who is nor, a necessary party.

3. Suit carrre to be decreed and it was helrl as follows: "lN THE RESULT a preliminary decree is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff parritioning thc suit schedule property into four equal shares allotting 1/4th share out of the suit schedule property to plaintiff, I /4rh share each to defcr-rdzrnt No. I to 3 instead of half share to plaintiff ;rnd the plaintiff is at liberty to obtain posscssion r>f her share out of the suit schcdule property b_v rvay of filing a separatc petiLion under sub curia. With that direction, thc present suit is disposcd of u,ith r:osts."

4. First Appeal vide A.S.No.l49 of 2008 ri'as preferred before the X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and by judgment dated

02.l2.2OlO, the First Appeal came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2033 of 2004 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.1 in the suit challenging the First Appellate Court's orcler.

5. Both counsels are present in the Court. It is represented by the counsels that the appellirnts and legal heirs of respondent No.l have entered into ;L compromise. I I J JAK, J sA 355 20rI Appellant is no more and his l,egal Representatives (LRs) are brought on record. LRs of appellant and LRs of respondent No.1 entered into an agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the Joint Memo are annexed as documents to I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2025.

6. I.A.No.l ol 2025 is filed r,r,ith the lollowing prayer: "... to passjudgment and decrcc in the present S.A.No.355 of 2OlI as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the present memorandum of compromise, by sctting aside judgmcnt and decree passed in A.S.No. 149 of 2008 dt.O2.l2.2O7O by learned X Addl. Chief Judgc (Fast Track Court) by dismissing the O.S.No.2O33 of 2OO4 dt.I2.O2.2OO8 passed by learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in the interest of justice and pass any such other order(s) that may deem frt based on facts and circumstances of the present case."

7. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is filed with the foliowing prayer: to permit the them and 2nd & 3rd respondents/ defendants Nos.2 & 3 to enter into the compromise as per the terms and conditions of the memorarrdum of compromisc dated .09.2025, and pass the compromise decrec as per thc terms and conditions of the said rnemorandum of compromisc in the present S.A.No.355 of 20 11, in the interest of justice, and pass such othcr or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case."

8. Joint Memo is filed by appellants arrd respondent Nos.2 and 3 in I.A.No. I of 2025, the terms and conditions I \ JAK, J sA 155 201 I of compromise are recorded in the Joint Memo filed An MOU is also annexed, signed by the parties in I.A.No.1 of 2025. The MOU has various clauses bv rvhich the amicable settlement has been arrived at. MOU dated

09.09.20'25 is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 ol C.P.C.

9. Learned counsels appearing on behalf ol appellants and respondents submitted that the legal hcirs ol plaintifi 4nd defer-rdants have entered into a comprornise and the Second Appeal be closed in terms of the corrpromise, the Joint Memo and MOU filed as documcnts zrnnexed with I.A.No. I of 2025.

10. For the reasons stated in the accompanl,ing affidavit, I.A.No.I of 2025 and I.A.No.2 of 2025 are ordered accordingly. 1 1 . In vieu. of the submissions made by both the counsels appearing for the parties, the Joint Memo and the MOU dated 09.O9.2O25, annexed as documents to LA.No.1 of 2025, attested/signed by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that further adjudication is not 5 JAK, J sA 355 201 l required in the matter and Second Appeal can be closed in ! terms of compromise arrived at.

12. With the above observations, Second Appeal is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, il any, shall stand closed. SD/- N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR 0 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The X Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad' 2. One CC to SRl. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. PRAVEEN VYAPARI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies /N. PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1210912025 I JUDGMENT l.A.Nos.1 & 2 IN/AND SA.No.355 of 2011 1 :"r !' ijT u{/C '1 r-) 30 c[I P5 .!' CLOSIN(; T'HE APPEAL I \g 10