- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI MOHAMMED ZURAF S/O MOHAMMAD GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 46YEARS M G MEDICAL, G S K M ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577201 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V PRAKASH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAZEER AHAMED S/O LATE SHEIK AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O MARKET ROAD SAGAR TOWN-577401 2. 2(A) MOHAMMAD GHOUSE S/O LATE SHEIK AHAMAD SAB MODEL GUARAGE O T ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ABDUL MUNAFF S/O MOHAM MAD GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS MECHANIC Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 K R PURA, SHIVAMOGGA-577701 2(B) MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ S/O MOHAMMAD GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O K R PURAM SHIVAMOGGA-577701 2(C) MOHAMMAD ASHRAF S/O MOHAMMAD GHOUSE M G ELECTRONIC K R PURAM SHIVAMOGGA-577701 2(D) MOHAMMAD ASIF S/O MOHAMMAD GHOUSE AGED 38 YEARS PROP M G ELECTRONICS K R PURAM SHIVAMOGGA-577701 2(E) MOHAMMAD ALTAF S/O MOHAMMAD GHOUSE AGED 45 YEARS C/O ABDUL RAZAK OPP KADAPALLI MASJID MANGALORE-577101 2(f) SHAKILA JABIN W/O MOHAMMAD IDRIS AGED 49 YEARS D/O MOHAMMAD GHOUSE GOODWILL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY O T ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577201 2(g) SAHIRA BABU W/O ABDUL HASIB D/O LATE MOHAMMAD GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 R/O NO.3, BEEDI FACTORY THIRTHAHALLI-577201 3. SHAZADI BEGUM W/O LATE MHAMMAD PEER AGED ABOUT 65 YERS R/O VIDHYAVAHINI ITI COLLEGE S I T EXTENSION PRATHIBHA SOUNDARYA TUMKUR 4. SABIRA JAN W/O H A MAJEED AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O R M L NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577701 5. MAMTAZ KOUSAR W/O ABDUL ZABBAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O RML NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577701 6. NAJMUNNISA W/O LATE MOHAMMAD AMEER @ M A RASHEED AGED 68 YEARS R/O K R PURAM EXTN SHIVAMOGGA-577701 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. B S PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5 (NOC GIVEN IN R/O R4) SRI. V B SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 R2(A), R2(B), R2(C), R2(D), R2(F) AND R2(G) ARE SERVED V/O DATED 18.11.2015 NOTICE TO R2(E) AND R3 & R6- D/W SRI. CHIDAMBARA G S, ADVOCATE FOR R4(NOC)) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 30.10.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.219/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, SHIMOGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 23.6.2001 PASSED IN OS.NO.640/1989 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.),SHIMOGA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Fast Track-III, Shivamogga, dated 30.10.2012 passed in R.A.No.219/2009, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2007 passed in O.S.No.640/1989 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Shimoga. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.2(b), respondent No.6 was plaintiff No.1; respondent No.1 was plaintiff No.2; other - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 respondents were the legal representatives of defendant No.2, and respondent Nos.3 to 5 were defendant Nos.3 to 5. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession. It is a case of the plaintiffs that, one Sheikh Ahamed Sab was the owner of the suit schedule properties, which are the residential house and vacant site. He died in 1977, leaving behind his wife, two sons and three daughters. Plaintiff No.1 is the daughter-in-law. The husband of Plaintiff No.1 died intestate. The suit schedule property is the self-acquired property. After the demise of Sheikh Ahamed Sab, the plaintiffs and defendants were enjoying the suit schedule properties as co-tenants and the said properties were managed by defendant No.2. From past one year, each co-tenant has been expressing for separate share by metes and bounds in the estate of Sheik Ahmad Sab. This was brought to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 notice of defendants No. 1 and 2, but defendant No.2 was managing the properties of the entire family and they denied to grant share in the suit schedule property. Hence, plaintiff No.1 got issued a legal notice demanding her share through her deceased husband. 3.1 Defendant No.2 approached the Shimoga- Bhadravathi Town Planning Authority, City Municipality, Shimoga to get approved plan and for building licence with an intention to construct a work shop in the adjoining property which belongs to him. While doing so the defendant No.2 included a portion of the suit schedule item No.1 property which is facing towards the main road to make out a wrongful gain. The plaintiffs came to know about the licence issued in favour of defendant No.2. It is contended that the parties to the suit are Mohammedans. The plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are transposed as defendant Nos.4 to 6 and the plaintiff No.1 transposed as defendant No.4. Hence, a cause of action arose for the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. 3.2. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement admitting the death of Sheik Ahamed Sab. The husband of plaintiff No.4 was the 2nd son by name Mohamed Ameer pre-deceased father. He passed away on 19.01.1975 and Sheik Ahamed Sab died on 16.02.1976. 4th plaintiff being the wife of pre-deceased son is not entitled for the share. Defendant No.2 admitted that Sheik Ahamed Sab died intestate and that suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties and denied the plaint averments. It is contended that Sheik Ahamed Sab out of love and affection gifted the suit schedule property item No.1 in favour of Mohammed Ashraf in 1975 when he was a minor. The said gift was accepted by defendant No.2 on behalf of donee as he was managing the same and the donor has delivered the possession of the suit schedule - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 item No.1 property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.2. 3.3. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 passed away and his legal representatives were brought on record. Defendant No.2(c) (h) have adopted the written statement of defendant No.2. Other defendants have filed a memo on 03.10.2007 that in the event of decree in favour of the plaintiff their share also to be decided. Defendant Nos.4 and 5, defendant No.2(b)(g) have also filed similar memo on 11.10.2007. 3.4. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues, additional issues, and recasted issues: Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves the correctness of the boundaries of item No.1 of the schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs 1 to 4 proves that the plaintiff No.1 has got 6/31st share, 2nd plaintiff has got 3/31st shares, 3rd plaintiff has got 3/31st share - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 and 4th plaintiff has got 6/31st share in the estate let by deceased Sheik Ahamed Sab in the schedule properties? 3. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as set out in para No.11 of his written statement? 4. Whether the valuation for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is improper? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits? If so, at what rate? 6. To what relief the parties are entitled to? 7. What decree or order? Additional Issue: 1. Whether 2nd defendant proves that none of the plaintiffs or defendants have inherited the property of deceased Sheik Ahamad? 2. Whether 2nd defendant proves that Sheik Ahamad has gifted the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in favour of Mohammad Ashraf in 1975? Recasted Issue No.2 as per order in R.A.No.199/05: 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they have got 6/31st share each in the suit schedule property? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 3.5. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, examined themselves as PW1 and PW2, and marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. In rebuttal, the defendant examined through power of attorney holder as DW1, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.2, and marked one document as Ex.D1. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 and 5 in the affirmative, recasted issue No.2 and issue No.6 in the partly affirmative, issue Nos.3 to 5 in the negative, and issue No.7 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed with costs. It is declared that petitioner No.2 is entitled for 2/7th share in the suit schedule item Nos.1 and 2 properties. The LRs of defendant No.2 are jointly entitled for 2/7th share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are entitled for 1/7th share each in the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff No.2, defendant Nos.3 to 5 are entitled for future mesne profits on separate enquiry from the date of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 application till the date of handing over possession of the suit schedule properties. The suit of plaintiff No.1 was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.10.2007. 3.6. Defendant No.2(b), aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.640/1989 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.219/2009 on the file of FTC- III, Shivamogga. 3.7. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the trial Court committed any error in allotting the shares to the daughters of the deceased Sheik Ahamad Sab? (2) Whether the compromise petition filed in the trial Court dated 19.12.1995 filed by the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and deceased 2nd defendant was acted upon? (3) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court calls for any interference by this Court? - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 (4) What decree or order? 3.8. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and point No.4 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.640/1989 was confirmed vide judgment dated 30.10.2012. 3.9. Defendant No.2(b), aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. This Court, on 23.06.2016, admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law: (1) Were the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs allotting 2/7th share in favour of the plaintiff No.2 ignoring the direction issued by the lower appellate Court in the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2006 made in R.A.No.199/2005? (2) Were the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit of plaintiffs ignoring the compromise petition entered into between defendant Nos.4 and 5 (plaintiffs 2 and 3) with defendant No.2 dated 19.12.1995 and requested for dismissal of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 suit as not pressed and admittedly no steps have been taken to withdraw the said compromise petition? (3) Were the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit of plaintiffs in the facts and circumstances of the present case? 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and also learned counsel for defendant No.2(b). 6. Learned counsel for defendant No.2(b) submits that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are arbitrary and erroneous. He submits that plaintiff No.4 has no right to get himself transposed as plaintiff No.1, in view of the earlier order passed on I.A.No.10 by the trial Court. He also submits that the First Appellate Court remanded the matter in R.A.No.199/2005. It was only a limited remand and not an open remand. The trial Court on wrong notion that order of remand is an open remand consider the case of other defendants ignoring the compromise petition and the specific direction. He filed an - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 application for production of additional evidence. The same may be allowed and the matter may be remanded to the First Appellate Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs supported the impugned judgments and prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9 Reg. Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 to 3: Substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 3 are inter-linked with each other, hence, taken together for a common discussion, to avoid repetition of facts. 10. There is no dispute in regard to the relationship between the parties to the suit and also the properties owned and possessed by Sheikh Ahmad Sab and he died - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 intestate and the suit schedule properties are his self acquired properties. He died living behind his wife, son and daughters. After his demise, they have inherited the estate left by Sheikh Ahmad Sab. The second son of Sheikh Ahmad Sab predeceased Sheikh Ahmad Sab are not entitled to inherit the properties left by deceased Sheikh Ahmad Sab as per the Mohammeden Law. After the demise of Sheikh Ahmad Sab, the plaintiffs have inherited the properties and sought for partition and separate possession. Defendant No.2 denied to effect a partition. Hence, the cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. 11. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, examined themselves as PW.1 and PW.2 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P13. Initially, the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 23.06.2001. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2001, preferred an appeal in - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 R.A.No.199/2005 on the file of FTC-I Shivamoga. The First Appellate Court, vide judgement dated 15.07.2006, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2001 and remanded the matter to the trial Court. While remanding the matter to the trial Court, the First Appellate Court has passed the judgement. The operative portion of the judgement, which reads as follows: “The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Shimoga in O.S.No.640/1989 dismissing the suit or set aside and the matter is remanded for considering the case of this appellant afresh in the light of the observation made in the body of the judgement. Further, the trial Judge shall recast the issue No.2 so as to include the claim of this appellant who was 4th defendant in the lower Court. The matter shall be disposed of within six months.” 12. Pursuant to the remand, the trial Court recasted issue No.2 i.e., Whether plaintiffs prove that they have got 6/31st share each in the suit schedule property. The trial Court recorded its finding in para Nos.11, and 12, which reads as follows: - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 11. Recast Issue No.2:- In this case the defendant No.2 was the only contested party. He died during the pendency of appeal. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.2 who was transposed as defendant No.4 got re- transposed as plaintiff No.2 and brought on record the LRs of defendant No.2. The LRs of defendant No.2 have filed memo adopting the written statement of deceased defendant No.2. They also filed memo that in the event of decree in favour of plaintiff No.2 their share is to be allotted and are willing to pay the Court fee. Even defendant No.4 and 5 have filed memo accordingly. In this case both parties have not disputed the relationship with each other. The defendant No.1, who was a mother of the plaintiff No.2 and other defendants, died during the pendency of the suit. As per Mohammedan Law the wife of the deceased is the only sharer, and remaining parties are the residuaries. Since defendant No.1 is no more her share need not be carved out from the suit schedule properties. In this case the Power of Attorney Holder of plaintiff No.2 filed affidavit as PW.2 and prayed for allotment of 2/7th share in view of death of defendant No.1. (The learned counsel for the plaintiff No.2 as well as other defendants argued that since plaintiff No.1 remained absent, after matter has been remanded her claim is to be dismissed for non-prosecution. It has come in the evidence and parties have admitted that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the pre-deceased son of the deceased Sheik Ahammed the propositus. According to the Mohammedan Law the wife of the Pre-deceased son is neither a sharer nor a residuary, and hence she is not entitled for the share, as a son has no pre-existing right. Merely because she remained absent after the matter remanded her claim could not be dismissed for non prosecution. As already she adduced the evidence and produced documentary evidence in this case. Hence the argument urged by both sides counsels is not tenable. For the reason aforesaid plaintiff No.1 is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 12. In view of death of defendant No.1 the only sharer in this çase her share need not be carved out. Defendant No.1 is represented by LRs that is plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 to 5 as already pointed out there is no dispute between the parties regarding their relationship. Admittedly, plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 were the only sons and defendants No.3 to 5 are the daughters. As per Mohammedan law sons and the daughters are the residuaries. Therefore, plaintiff No.2 and the defendant No.2 being sons are entitled for 2 shares each in the suit schedule properties and defendant No. 3 to 5 being daughters are entitled for one share each. Therefore, plaintiff No.2 is entitled for 2/7th share in the suit schedule property. Accordingly deceased defendant No.2 entitled for 2/7th share in the suit schedule properties. Since, he is demised, the LRs of defendant No.2 are jointly entitled for 2/7th share in the suit schedule item No.1 and 2 property. Defendant No.3 to 5 being daughters are entitled for 1/7th shares each in the suit schedule item No.1 and 2 properties. In this case PW.2 has claimed 2/7th share in his affidavit. Hence, the learned counsel for the LRs vehemently contended that there is variation between the pleading and the evidence. In this case the LRs of defendant No.2 have not challenged the affidavit filed they have by P.A. holder of plaintiff No.2 as they have not cross-examined. In this regard learned counsel argued that PW.2 has not denied the contents of written statement and that the affidavit filed as examination-in-chief is not supported by pleading as plaintiff No.2 after re-transposed has not filed any memo adopting the plaint. On perusal of record it is evident after the plaintiff No.2 re- transposed he has filed memo adopting the plaint. However, merely because plaintiff No.2 failed to adopt the plaint it is not a valid ground to conclude on the records on behalf of plaintiff No.2 that there is no pleading because originally suit was filed by the plaintiff No.2 as No.1 and later on transposed as - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 defendant and then re-transposed as plaintiff. But this matter is of the year 1989 after disposal, the judgement was challenged in regular first appeal before the Appellate Court, the LRs also filed 2nd appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble Appellate Court has remanded this matter for fresh disposal. Therefore, considering these facts the irregularities in the procedural aspect could not be taken as serious technical lapse on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, the argument addressed by the counsel in this regard could not be entertained. Since the present suit is for partition and during the pendency of the suit defendant No.1 and 2 died the same could be taken in to consideration at the time of allotment of share to the respective parties. Merely because plaintiff has failed to amend the plaint for the relief of proportional share in view of death will not go to the very root of case. This Court has discretion to take judicial note of developments occurred during the pendency of the suit. Hence, if legitimate share of the parties is altered and allotted to their share, it will not amount to granting the relief without pleading. In view of the above discussion plaintiff No.1 is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property. Plaintiff No.2 is entitled for 2/7th share each in the suit schedule item No.1 and 2 properties. Accordingly the LRs of defendant No.2 are jointly entitled for 2/7th share each in the suit schedule item No.1 and 2 properties. Defendant No.3 to 5 are entitled for 1/7th share each in the suit schedule item No.1 and 2 properties. Accordingly I answer re-casted issue No.2 partly affirmative. 13. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 (plaintiff Nos.2 and 3) entered into compromise with defendant No.2 vide dated - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 19.12.1995 and filed compromise petition before the trial Court. 14. I have perused the order dated 19.12.1995, which reads as follows: “2nd plaintiff, 3rd plaintiff and 2nd defendant jointly filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC through their respective counsels. Heard parties to the compromise. They submits that they have voluntarily entered the compromise petition out of their own consent and they executed the compromise petition before the Court. 4th plaintiff/counsel prays time to file objections to the compromise petition. 4th plaintiff is present and she is examined-in-chief partly as PW.1, got marked Exs.P1 to P6. For plaintiff further evidence call on 10.01.” 15. From the perusal of the entire order sheet of the trial Court, it does not disclose that the trial Court has accepted the compromise petition filed by defendant Nos.4 and 5 (plaintiff Nos.2 and 3) with defendant No.2 dated 19.12.1995. The parties though they have filed the compromise petition but the parties have not acted upon on the said partition and till the disposal of the suit by the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 trial Court initially did not press for accepting the compromise petition filed by plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and defendant No.2. When the said compromise petition was not accepted by the trial Court, hence, the question of withdrawing the said compromise petition would not arise. Both the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs by awarding 2/7th share in favour of plaintiff No.2. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative. 16. The appellant and respondent No.4 filed a joint compromise petition, wherein defendant No.4 before the trial Court has settled amicably in R.A.No.5/2014, which was preferred by defendant No.2 against the final decree passed in FDP No.4/2008. The said compromise petition was accepted in the said appeal and passed the compromise decree. It is contended that respondent No.4 acknowledges with a memo dated 19.12.1995 was filed in - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 the suit proceedings and having regard to the said memo and settlement arrived between the parties agrees not to assert or pursue any claim, right, share or interest in respect of suit schedule properties against the appellant. 17. Respondent No.4 relinquishes/assigns/release in favour of the appellant all her rights, title, interest and claims in respect of share allotted to her under the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2007 passed in O.S.No.640/1989. Respondent No.4 further agrees that neither she nor her heirs, legal representatives in respect of such share or the suit schedule property by virtue of their. It is also stated that in full and final settlement of all the claim of respondent No.4 in relation to the suit schedule properties, the appellant has paid a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to respondent No.4 through cheque bearing No.000205 dated 10.08.2015 drawn on Bank of Baroda for Rs.3,00,000/-, cash payment of Rs.20,000/- made on - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31700 RSA No. 42 of 2013 10.08.2015 cheque bearing No.000250 dated 10.03.2016 drawn on Bank of Baroda for Rs.1,80,000/-. 18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. (2) However the appellant is at liberty to work out his remedy in the FDP proceedings in regard to the share of respondent No.4 in terms of compromise petition filed before this Court. As far as compromise entered before the trial Court, the trial Court has not accepted the compromise petition. Hence, the question of considering the said aspect in this appeal does not arise. (3) I.A.No.1/2024 is rejected. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS- para 1 to 3 SSB- para 3.1 to 18