- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2545-DB RFA No. 200004 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 200004 OF 2025 (DEC/POS) BETWEEN: 1(A) PUNDLIKRAO DIED BY HIS LRS SHAKUBAI D/O LATE PUNDLIKRAO (W/O DIGAMBAR CHAUHAN), AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI, R/O VILLAGE BENAKNALLI, TQ & DIST: BIDAR 1(B) RAJEEV S/O LATE PUNDALIKRAO, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O VILLAGE BENAKNALLI, TQ & DIST: BIDAR 1(C) PUSHPA S/O LATE PUNDALIKRAO (W/O BALAJI CHAUHAN), AGE: ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI, R/O BENAKNALLI, TQ & DIST: BIDAR. 1(D) SHOBHA D/O LATE PUNDALIKRAO (W/O VISHNUPANTH SOLANKE), AGE: ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI, R/O VILLAGE TEBHURNI, TQ: AHMADPUR, DIST: LATUR, MAHARASTRA. 1(E) RAM S/O LATE PUNDALIKRAO, Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2545-DB RFA No. 200004 of 2025 AGE: ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRI & BANK EMPLOYEES, R/O VILLAGE BENAKNALLI, TQ & DIST: BIDAR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K M GHATE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NARSAPPA S/O RACHAPPA BARBER, AGE: ABOUT 91 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE BENAKNALLI, TQ & DIST: BIDAR. 2. KHANDERAO S/O HAIBATHRAO, AGE: ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O VILLAGE BENAKNALLI, TQ & DIST: BIDAR. 3. KAUSHALYABAI W/O PUNDLIKRAO, AGE: ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI, R/O VILLAGE BENAKNALLI, TQ & DIST: BIDAR. 4. DIGAMBAR S/O GANGADHAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O VILLAGE BENAKNALLI, TQ & DIST: BIDAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANTOSH .A, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADV. FOR R4) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19-11-2024 PASSED IN O.S. NO.102/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM BIDAR, WHEREIN, THE SUIT WAS PARTLY DECREED.IN TIME COURT FEE IS SUFFICIENTTRIAL PARTLY DECREED THE SUIT FOR COURT DECLARATION AND POSSESSION, PERPETUAL INJUNCTION I.A 2/2025 FOR DISPENSATION I.A 2/2025 FILED U/S 151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO DISPENSE WITH THE PRODUCTION OF CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OS NO.102/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRL. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2545-DB RFA No. 200004 of 2025 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BIDAR DATED 19-11-2024. THE SAME WILL BE PRODUCE WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the appellant under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2024 which is partly allowed by the Trial Court and for having rejected the permanent injunction, correction of ROR and also the compromise entered between the parties. 2. The appellants No.1, 3 and 4 appeared through the appellant No.2 and appellant No.5 is also present along with respondents No.1 to 4 and filed the joint compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 read with - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2545-DB RFA No. 200004 of 2025 Section 151 of CPC. The terms of the compromise are referred is as under: “That, the father of the appellants had filed suit for declaration of ownership and possession in respect of land bearing Sy.No.142 measuring to the extent of 2 acres 38 guntas of village Benaknalli, Tq & Dist: Bidar, within the following boundaries; East: Land of Tulsiram and Samrat, West: Land of Narasappa barber (defendant No.1), north: land of defendant No.2-Khanderao in Sy.No143. South: land of defendant No.2-Khanderao in Sy.No.142 (purchased from Parabai W/o Anandrao measuring 7 acres 37 guntas) in O.S.No.102/2018 on the file of Pri. Senior Civil Judge, Bidar. 2. That, the aforesaid suit is being partly decreed, the relief of correction of ROR entries and declaration of sale deed as null and void got executed by defendant No.1 and in turn he sold the land during pendency of the suit in favour of defendant No.4, are not being cancelled. So, the appellants are before this Hon'ble Court by way of present appeal. 3. That, the father of the appellants purchased the aforesaid extent of land from one Hariba S/o Tukarm Pujari by way of registered sale deed bearing document No.303/1977-78 dated 20.04.1977 and accordingly he came in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land. 4. That, the defendant, respondent No.1 purchased land bearing Sy. No. 142 measuring to an extent of 5 aces 34guntas out of 7 acres 37 guntas of village Benakanalli, Tq & Dist: Bidar from one Namdev S/o Tukaram under sale deed document No.2394/1977-98 dated 26.10.1974. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2545-DB RFA No. 200004 of 2025 5. However, the ROR entries carried out by the revenue authorities on the name of defendant /respondent No. 1 to an extent of 3 acres 39 guntas. The said ROR entries are still continued to which there is no objection by the defendant /respondent No. 1. 6. That, on account of wrong ROR entries appeared on the name of father of the appellants, defendants No.2 and 3, which is quiet against the possession held by the respective parties and also the registered sale deed on the name of defendant No.2. 7. That, the defendant. No.2, who is absolute owner and possessor of Sy.No.142/A measuring 7 acres 37 guntas as per registered sale deed executed by Parabai W/o Anandrao under registered sale deed 2309/1975-76. 8. So, the father of appellants filed suit for declaration of ownership, correction of ROR entries and also declaration that the sale deed got executed by defendant / respondent No. 1 on dated 26.10.1974 as 5 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No.142 of village Benakanalli is null and void sham and bogus documents, not binding upon the rights and interest of the plaintiffs. The father of the appellants sought for correction of ROR entries in the said survey number Sy.No.142 from the year 1974-75 to up to date. 9. That, the defendant No.-2, who is absolute owner and possessor of Sy.No.142/A measuring 7 acres 37 guntas as per registered sale deed executed by Parabai under registered sale deed 2309/1975-76 dated 26.02.1976. However, the name of defendant No.2 was not shown in ROR entries as per his sale deeds. 10. That during pendency of the suit, the defendant/respondent No. 1 sold away his land in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2545-DB RFA No. 200004 of 2025 Sy. No. 142 showing his extent as 5 acres 12 guntas. in favour of defendant/respondent No.4 bearing document No. 109/2020-21 dated 14.05.2020. By way of amendment to the plaint, the said sale deed also challenged by the father of the appellants. However, the name of defendant No.4 is not mutated on the basis of said sale deed as 5 acres 12 guntas nor there is any ROR entries on the name of defendant No.4. 11. That, now the appellants and defendants No.1 and 4, at the advise of elderly persons of the village, and close friends and relatives, have agreed upon to get settled their dispute, as per spot possession of the respective lands, admitting the sale deed of the appellants father and defendant No.2. 12. That, the defendants/respondents No.1 and 4 having realized that there is no land available with the defendant No.1 as per sale deed dated 26.10.1974 and it is only 3 acres 39 guntas of land was with defendant No. 1. Now, the defendant No.1/respondent No.1 in view of he settlement had agreed upon to get execute the deed of correction to the sale deed got executed by the defendant No.4 bearing document No. 109/2020-21 dated 14.05.2020, showing the extent of land as 3 acres 39 guntas, sold in favour of defendant/respondent No.4 and the defendant No.4 is in possession of the aforesaid extent of land. However, due to execution of correction deed, there will not be any major changes regarding boundaries and location mentioned in the sale deeds referred above will remain without any change. 13. That, the appellants and defendant No. 1, 2 and 4 having realized that in the absence of competent Civil Courts Decree, as per possession of the appellant's father, the defendants No. 1 and 2, the correction of revenue entries is not possible. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2545-DB RFA No. 200004 of 2025 14. Therefore, the defendant /respondent No. 3, who is the mother of the appellants in the present case, her name is wrongly entered in some of the ROR entries of land bearing Sy.No. 142 measuring 15 acres 34 guntas of village Benkanalli Tq and Dist: Bidar, she is a formal party to the suit and present appeal and she has not claimed her any independent rights in the suit survey number. 15. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settlement / compromise arrived between the appellants, the defendants No.1, 2 and 4 , the suit of the plaintiffs may be decreed as prayed for, however, due to admission of defendant No.1 and 4, the sale deed got executed by the defendant No.4 bearing document No.109/2020-21 dated 14.05.2020 will hold valid only to the extent of land to be mentioned in the deed of correction to be executed by defendant No.1/respondent No.1 in favour of defendant respondent No.4. 16. That, in view of the aforesaid settlement and compromise, the ROR entries on the name of appellants will be entered in respect of the suit land as per sale deed got executed by their father and on the name of defendant No.2 as per his sale deed bearing document No.2309/1975-76 dated 26.02.1976. 17. That, after the present settlement and compromise arrived between the parties, the defendant No.1 had no any claim based upon sale deed dated 26.10.1974. Since as per his possession 3 acres 39 guntas within the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed and also the subsequent sale deed executed on the name of defendant No.4 will remain binding on all the parties to the suit. 18. That, in view of the present compromise petition and decree, this Hon'ble Court may please - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2545-DB RFA No. 200004 of 2025 to direct the revenue authorities to correct the ROR entries of Sy.No.142 total measuring 15 acres 34 guntas, based upon the sale deed of appellants father, defendant No.2, and on the basis of possession held by the defendant No.1 and 4 and also on the basis of correction deed going to be executed by. the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of aforesaid survey number. 19. That the contents of this compromise petition read over and explained to the respective parties in Kannada / Marathi language, and after understanding the same, they have put forth their signature / thumb impression on the present compromise petition.” 3. Though the suit was partly decreed by the trial Court, however rejected the permanent injunction as well as the correction of entries in the ROR, now it is settled by the parties as the defendant No.1 though is said to have purchased 5 acres 34 guntas, but it was found that he is in possession of only 3 acres 39 guntas. 4. In view of the same, the sale deed of the 1st defendant in favour of the 4th defendant is required to be modified and the parties are hereby entitled to compromise and settle their dispute. As per the terms of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2545-DB RFA No. 200004 of 2025 settlement, they are entitled to get corrected their names in the ROR. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. 6. Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT: PS