MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Physical Presence of Parties not needed for Compromise Petition, Mutual Consent Divorce & Acceptance of Sureties

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

RSA NO.100338/2014 (PAR)

Between:

Shri. Nijalingappa Ramappa Gokavi,
Since deceased by his L.Rs.

1. Smt. Gouravva W/o. Nijalingappa Gokavi,
Age 56 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Parakanatti-591122,Taluka: Hukeri, Dist. Belgaum.

2. Shri. Basavaraj S/o. Nijalingappa Gokavi,
Age 36 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Parakanatti – 591122,Taluka: Hukeri, Dist. Belgaum.

3. Shri. Mallikarjun S/o. Nijalingappa Gokavi,
Age 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Parakanatti – 591122,Taluka: Hukeri, Dist. Belgaum.

4. Shri. Vithal S/o. Ramappa Gokavi,
Age 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Parakanatti – 591122,Taluka : Hukeri, Dist. Belgaum….Appellants

(By Sri. Akshay A. Katti, Advocate)

And:

Shri. Ramappa Sheteppa Gokavi,
Since deceased by is L.Rs R1-4.

Smt. Tippawwa W/o. Ramappa Gokavi,
Since deceased by his L.Rs. R1-4.

1. Shri. Anand Ramappa Gokavi,
Age 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Parakanatti-591122,Taluka: Hukeri, Dist. Belgaum.

2. Shri. Chidanand Ramappa Gokavi,
Age 61 years, Occ: Agriculture & pensioner,
R/o. Parakanatti – 591122,Taluka: Hukeri, Dist. Belgaum.

3. Smt. Gouravva W/o. Bhimagouda Patil,
Age 67 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Parakanatti-591122,Taluka : Hukeri, Dist. Belgaum.

4. Shri. Nirvaneppa Ramappa Gokavi,
Age 55 years, Occ: Agriculture &
Medical Practitioner,
R/o. Parakanatti-591122,Taluka: Hukeri, Dist. Belgaum.

5. Shri. Shrikant Nijalingappa Gokavi,
Age 34 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Parakanatti – 591122,Taluka:Hukeri, Dist. Belgaum….Respondents

(Sri. Anand Ashtekar, Advocate for R1, R2, R4 & R5; Sri. Pratik Shipurkar & Smt. Sarita Shreyakar, Advocates for R3)

This RSA is filed under Section 100 r/w. Order 42 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.05.2014 passed in R.A.No.73/2013 on the file of the VII District & Sessions Judge, Belgaum at Chikodi, dismissing the appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.01.2013 and the decree passed in O.S.No.38/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri, decreeing the suit filed for partition and separate possession.

See also  Family courts can't Insist on Personal Presence of Parties at the Time of filing even for Mutual Consent Divorce

This RSA coming on for Final Hearing, this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT
1. Sri. Akshay A. Katti, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Anand Ashtekar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5, Ms. Sarita Shreyakar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 have today presented a compromise petition entered into by the appellants and the respondents under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.

2. In view of the COVID-19 situation and in view of the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.7338/2020 (Suo Moto), wherein a Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of this Court has held that physical presence of the parties is not needed for compromise petition, mutual consent divorce or acceptance of the sureties, the presence of the appellants and the respondents including the Power of Attorney Holder of respondent No.3 is dispensed with.

3. The said compromise petition has been signed by the Power of Attorney Holder of respondent No.3 being her son namely Sri. Satyagonda S/o. Bhimagouda Patil, in whose favour the Power of Attorney has been executed and the original of the said Power of Attorney has been produced at Schedule III of the compromise petition.

4. The compromise petition is accompanied by the affidavits of the appellants, respondent No.1, 2, 4 & 5 in English with an endorsements stating that the contents thereof, as also the contents of the compromise petition which are in English have been read over, translated and explained to the appellants and respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5. In the said affidavits, there is an endorsement by the respective counsels i.e. Sri. Akshay A. Katti and Mr. Anand Ashtekar of having identified the deponents before the concerned Notary Public. They also confirm that the affidavits have been singed in their presence.

See also  Whether court should give divorce on ground that wife had filed criminal case against husband if he has not taken that plea in his divorce petition?

5. The affidavit on behalf of respondent No.3 has been filed in Kannada a language known to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has been identified by Mr. C.S.Hiremath, Advocate, who is registered with the Karnataka Bar Council bearing registration No.KAR1141/2006. He is stated to be a family friend of the appellants and the respondents and he has travelled with respondent No.3 to the Notary for the purpose of identification and notarization of the affidavit.

6. Sri. Akshay Katti, Sri. Anand Ashtekar and Ms. Sarita Shreyakar confirm knowing Mr. C.S.Hiremath and also confirm of Mr. Hiremath having informed them of the identification made by him and notarization of the affidavit of respondent No.3.

7. The compromise petition is itself signed by the appellant Nos.2 to 4, respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the Power of Attorney Holder of respondent No.3. The appellant No.1 having affixed her left thumb impression which has been identified by Sri. Akshay Katti who is the counsel on record. All the counsels submit that, the compromise petition has been signed in their presence.

8. I have perused the contents of the compromise petition. The compromise arrived at is lawful and permissible and as such the said compromise petition is taken on record.

9. Ms. Sarita Shreyakar confirms having received the Demand Draft bearing No.434178 dated 04.08.2020 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Belagavi Branch which she submits would be handed over to the Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.3 by the end of the day tomorrow and thereafter she will file an affidavit of having handed over the same to the Power of Attorney Holder of respondent No.3 along with a receipt signed by the said Power of Attorney Holder with the Registry of this Court.

See also  Marriage Irretrievably Broken - Six Months cooling Period Waives Off

10. In view of the receipt of the said amount and the earlier amount of Rs.35,000/- received by the respondent No.3, she has relinquished her share in the properties subject matter of the suit. The said relinquishment is taken on record. Each of them being entitled to 1/5th share, the parties have agreed to share the properties as per the above entitlement. The said 1/5th share is also identified by metes and bounds in terms of the sketch produced at Schedule II to the compromise petition. The said sketch is also placed on record.
11. Accepting the terms of the compromise, the suit is decreed in terms of the said compromise petition. The Registry is directed to draw up a decree in terms of the said compromise petition.

12. All the counsels submit that they would be registering the compromise decree with the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar and would be filing a copy of the said registered document with the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks of such registration. Accordingly, they are permitted to do so.

13. The above appeal is disposed of, in terms of the compromise petition filed today.

Sd/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Neither Spouse can withdraw the Consent given during filing the Mutual Consent Divorce.
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation