KASTURI v. SMT.MUTTAWA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- DILIP B BHOSALE
Outcome
Dismissed
petition is dismissed reserving right to the petitioners to
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. No.6/12. In these circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned compromise decree. Hence the writ petition is dismissed reserving right to the petitioners to prosecute the other suit and their counter claim on merits. TL
Judgment
(By Sri. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADV.,) PtiiriONERS 2 AND
SMT.MUTTAWA W/O. MAHADEV KORAVI 0 VAJANTRI AGE: 69 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, RIO. KADAPUR, TQ: CHIKODI, NOW RESIDING AT KATAKABHAVI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGUAM. SMT. FAKIRAWA W/O. RAMAPPA GAYAKWAD, AGE: 67 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK RiO. DEVAPURHATrI, TQ: CHIKODI, NOW RESIDING AT KATAKABHAVI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGUAM. SRI HONNAPPA Sb. NINGAPPA PATROOT 0 GHATICHOR 0 BAILAPPAGOL, AGE: 74 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, SRI MAHAVEER S/0. YAMANAPPA GHANTICHOR 0 PATRUT AGE: 26 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, SRI YAMANAPPA Sb. FAKIRAPPA GHANTICHOR 0 PATRUT AGE: 55 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, SRI VflTAL Sb. FAKIRAPPA GHANTICHOR 0 PATRUT AGE: 60 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, SRI RANGAPPA Sb. FAKIRAPPA GHANTICHOR 0 PATRUT AGE: 45 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, SRI BHAILAPPA 5/0. SIDDAPPA GHANTICHOR 0 PATRUT AGE: 60 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE,
11 SRI SIDDAPPA 5/0. RAMAPPA GANTICHOR @ PATRUT, AGE: 35 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, SRI NINGAPPA 5/0 RAMAPPA GHANTICHOR © PATRUT, AGE: 28 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, SRI REVAPPA Sb SHANKAR JADHAV GHANTICHOR AGE: 45 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE. RESPONDENTS-3 TO 11 ARE RIO. KATAKABHAVI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED:24/O1/2012 PASSED IN O.S.N0.6/2012 BY LOK ADALATH (SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE), RAIBAG, VIDE ANNEXURE-H AS NULL AND VOID. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY. HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: PC: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
By this writ petition, petitioners challenging the compromise decree dated 24.1.12 passed in O.S.No.6/12 by Lok Adalath (Sr.Civil Judge), Raibag. 4
the said suit. Admittedly, the petitioners were not parties to In view thereof, I am not inclined to interfere with the compromise decree. If the petitioners are deprived of any right in the property, which was the subject matter of 0.5.6/12, is always open for them to take appropriate remedy for the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is another suit bearing 0.S.No.349/07 pending against them in which they have filed counter claim claiming right in the properties which were also the subject matter of 0.
Operative part
No.6/12. In these circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned compromise decree. Hence the writ petition is dismissed reserving right to the petitioners to prosecute the other suit and their counter claim on merits. TL
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is dismissed reserving right to the petitioners to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.