Telangana High Court
AS/724/2011 of Nagaladinne Hidayathulla Vs Smt. S.Roqula Bee on 30 December 2014
DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY A.S.M.P.No.2727 of 2014 in/and A.S.No.724 of 2011 JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) The appeal Suit arises from the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2011 passed in O.S.No.3 of 2006, instituted by respondent
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALEANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
A.S.M.P.No.2727 of 2014in/andA.S.No.724 of 2011
JUDGMENT :(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
The appeal Suit arises from the judgment anddecree dated 8.8.2011 passed in O.S.No.3 of 2006,instituted by respondent No.1 – Smt. S. Roquia Bee, w/o.S.M.M.K. Azad. The suit was for partition. Exceptrespondent Nos.8 to 14 (original defendant Nos.13 to 19),parties to the instant appeal are members of one and thesame family. Respondent Nos.8 to 14 are the purchasersof some of the suit schedule properties. Learned counselappearing for the appellants seeks leave of the Court todelete respondent Nos.8 to 14 from the array ofrespondents. Leave granted. Respondent Nos.8 to 14accordingly stand deleted from the array of respondents.Amendment to be carried out during the course of the day.
2. The appellants and all other respondents arepresent in the Court along with their Advocates on record.Learned advocates state that the parties have amicablyresolved the dispute and placed Memorandum ofcompromise (for short “MOC”) on record duly signed bythem and the parties and requested to dispose of theappeal in terms thereof. They also identified theirrespective clients. In the MOC, the appellants haveagreed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only)
each to respondent No.1 and to the branches of thedeceased respondent Nos.2 and 3 as provided for in theMOC. Respondent Nos.19 to 24 and 26 to 30 are thelegal representatives of deceased respondent Nos.2 and3, respectively. Respondent No.15 since deceased isrepresented by respondent No.25. The respondents arepresent in the Court and they state they have gonethrough the compromise petition. Respondent Nos.1, 16,17, 18, 22, 28, 29 and 30 do not understand English, butthey state that their learned Advocates on record andother family members have translated and explained tothem the contents of MOC and they have understood thesame. All the respondents confirm that they have receivedthe amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) inthe Court as provided for in the MOC by Demand Drafts. The respondents state that having received the amountsmentioned in the compromise petition, they have given uptheir right in the suit schedule properties in favour of theappellants.
3. The MOC dated 27.12.2014 is taken on record. The statements made by the parties in the MOC areaccepted.
4. A.S.M.P.No.2727 of 2014 is accordingly allowed.Consequently, Appeal Suit No.724 of 2011 standdisposed of in terms of the MOC. The MOC shall form apart of the decree. Decree be drawn accordingly.Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
BHOSALE
___________________________
JUSTICE DILIP B.
REDDY30.12.2014.Msr
____________________________
JUSTICE R. SUBHASH
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALEANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
A.S.M.P.No.2727 of 2014in/andA.S.No.724 of 2011
30.12.2014Msr