SRI. ASHOK S/O MALLAPPA MELLI vs KASHIMALI S/O SAIFUDDIN GOTE
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17178
MSA No. 100055 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020072612026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.100055 OF 2026 (RO)
BETWEEN:
SRI. ASHOK S/O. MALLAPPA MELLI,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BENAKATTI, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOTE-587111.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.B. BALLARI, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. RAVI N.CHIKKARADDDER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KASHIMALI S/O. SAIFUDDIN GOTE,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, BILAGI, TALUK. BILAGI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587116.
2. RESHMA W/O. KASHIMALI GOTE,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, BILAGI,
TALUK. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587204.
3. SMT. ASHABEE W/O. NOORSAB BESTAWAD,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. RISALDAR KILLA, CHANDAN TALKIES,
KALADAGI, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOTE-587204.
4. SRI. NOORSAB S/O. DAWALSAB BESTAWAD,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O. RISALDAR KILLA, NEAR CHANDAN TALKIES,
KALADAGI, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOTE-587204.
Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR N
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17178
MSA No. 100055 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020072612026
5. SHANKAUSAR W/O. CHANDAKHAN PATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KUNDARAGI, TALUK. BILAGI, DIST.
BAGALKOTE- 587204.
6. INAKAUSAR W/O. LALSAB PATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RESIDING AT KUNDARAGI, TALUK. BILAGI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587204.
7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
B.T.D.A., BAGALKOT- 587101.
8. THE REHABILITATION OFFICER,
B.T.D.A., BAGALKOT- 587101.
9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, NAVANAGAR,
BAGALKOTE-587101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R9 ARE SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1(U) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN RA NO.188/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT-I, BAGALKOT DATED
30.10.2025 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M.
BAGALKOTE IN O.S. NO.105/2014 DATED 27.08.2019 AND
AWARD COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17178
MSA No. 100055 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020072612026
ORAL JUDGMENT
Both the counsel in unison submits that respondent
Nos.3 to 6 are the vendors of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Since, they have already sold the property, they have no
interest in the property and though served, they are
unrepresented.
2. The lis involved is only between the appellant
and the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The submission is taken
on record. Today, both learned counsel for the appellant
as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2
along with their parties are present before this Court and
filed memorandum compromise petition under Order XXIII
Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said
memorandum is signed by both the parties and counter
signed by their counsel.
3. This appeal is filed seeking to set aside the
judgment dated 30.10.2025, passed by Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court-I, Bagalkot,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17178
MSA No. 100055 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020072612026
in R.A.No.188/2019 and confirm the judgment and decree
dated 27.08.2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, Bagalkot in OS.No.105/2014. During the
pendency of this appeal, both the parties with the advice
of well wishers, elders and friends, settled the matter out
of Court and filed this petition incorporating the
settlement. The memorandum of compromise petition filed
reads as under:
“MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE PETITION
UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908
The Appellant and Respondents No.1 and 2 most humbly
submit as hereunder: -
1. The top-noted Appeal is filed by the Appellant
challenging the Judgment and Decree 30/10/2025
passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Special Court-I, Bagalkot in R.A
No.188/2019, thereby allowing the Appeal filed by the
Respondents No.1 and 2 and modifying the Judgment
and Decree dated 27/08/2019 passed by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkot in O.S.
No.105/2014.
THE LIS
2. The dispute between the parties arise out of the
property bearing Plot No.2, Model 'C' Special, Sector
No.2, Navanagar, Bagalkot measuring 27 Mtrs. X 12
Mtrs. Morefully described in the schedule hereunder
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17178
MSA No. 100055 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020072612026
and hereinafter referred to as ("Schedule
Property" ).
3. That the Appellant claims to be the agreement
holder in respect of the said schedule property from
Respondent No.3 to 6 under an agreement of sale
dated 18/07/2008 whereunder, the Appellant claims to
have paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- Whereas, the
Respondent No.1 herein had advanced a loan of
Rs.9,40,000/- to the said Defendant No.1/Respondent
No.3 and in the event of failure on part of Defendant
No.1/Respondent No.3, the Respondent No.3 had
executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of
Respondent No.1 and accordingly Respondent No.1
under the said General Power of Attorney has
executed a registered sale deed in favour of
Respondent No.2 herein on 05/11/2024.
4. This being the case, the Appellant filed a suit
seeking the relief of specific performance as against
the Respondent No.3 to 6 and Respondent No.1 and 2
in O.S. No.105/2014. The said suit came to be
decreed by Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree
dated 27/08/2019 directing specific performance of
the agreement.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the Respondents
No.1 and 2 preferred an Appeal before the I Appellate
Court in R.A.188/2019 which came to be allowed and
the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for
fresh consideration. Being aggrieved by the same, the
Appellant has filed the top-noted second appeal.
THE SETTLEMENT
6. During the pendency of the top-noted Appeal, at
the Intervention of the elders and the well-wishers of
the parties, the parties have now agreed to bury their
hatches and amicably settle their dispute within
themselves by way of this amicable settlement.
7. Both the parties namely, the Appellants and the
Respondents No.1 and 2 in order to put an end to the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17178
MSA No. 100055 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020072612026
ongoing litigation between the parties, agree to share
the Schedule Property between themselves equally.
8. As such, the Appellant and Respondents No.1 and 2
agree that the Appellant shall become the absolute
owner without any encumbrance of half portion of the
schedule property to an extent of half 13½ Mtrs X 12
Mtrs. and the Respondent No.2 shall become the
absolute owner without any encumbrance of the other
half of the schedule property to an extent of 131½
Mtrs X 12 Mtrs.
9. That the Appellant and the Respondents No.1 and 2
further agree that this is the full and final settlement
between the parties and that either of the parties shall
not claim right, title and/or interest over the suit other
half of the schedule property.
10. The parties are at liberty to bifurcate their
respective shares and mutate their respective names
over the portions of the properties fallen to their
shares.
11. The Appellant shall retain the western side of the
property facing the road and the Respondent No.2
shall retain the eastern side of the property on which
the Respondent No.2 has built a house.
12. Further the parties agree that both the parties
shall have right to access, egress and Ingress to each
of their shares through the main road and the
Appellant shall provide access to the Respondent No.2
to reach her share of the property through the
property fallen to share of the Appellant.
13. It is further submitted that, the Appellants and the
Respondents No.1 and 2 are the only contesting
parties and the Respondents No.3 to 6 being the
original owners of the property have not contested
proceedings throughout.
14. Further, the Respondent No.3 having sold the
Schedule Property in favour of Respondent No.2, has
not questioned the same till date and as such, the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17178
MSA No. 100055 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020072612026
Respondent No.3 having ceased to have any rights
over the Schedule Property, and Respondents No.4 to
6 claiming through Respondent No.3, the Respondent
No.3 to 6 are not necessary parties to this
compromise. In so far as, Respondents No.7 to 9 are
concerned since they are formal parties and no reliefs
are claimed against Respondents No.7 to 9 and this
Compromise is not going to affect any of the rights of
Respondents No.7 to 9 hence they are also not
necessary parties to the present compromise.
15. This compromise is read over and explained to all
the parties in the languages known to them and they
have understood the terms and conditions of the
compromise. That the parties have entered into the
aforesaid compromise with their own wish and volition
and there is no undue coercion, influence or mis-
representation in arriving at this compromise.”
4. Both the parties who are present before the
Court are inquired regarding the contents of the
compromise petition which is in English and as per both
the counsels, the same has been explained to them in the
regional language i.e., in Kannada. Both the parties have
submitted that having understood the entire content
stated in the compromise petition, they have affixed their
signature on free volition, without there being any undue
duress/influence. The Court has perused the contents
stated in the compromise and found that the same is
legally valid. Accordingly, the same is accepted. The MSA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17178
MSA No. 100055 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020072612026
is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition filed.
Accordingly, registry to draw decree and the compromise
petition filed today shall form part of the decree.
5. Since, the matter is disposed of, the matter
before the Trial Court is consigned.
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
RKM
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1