LawSphereX

M/s. Shatakarni Real Estates Private Limited, v. Shanker Naik,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: P.SREE SUDHA

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-11-29. M/s. Shatakarni Real Estates Private Limited, v. Shanker Naik,. Read the judgment and case...

Judgment text

AT HYDERABAD IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA l. A. NO: 5 OF 2023 IN / AND APPEAL SUIT NO: 227 OF 2023 AppealunderSectiong6andorder4lofCPCagainsttheJudgrnentand 2013 0n the file Decree dated 31 . 10. 2022 made in o. s. No. 102 0f of the court of the Principal District Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri' Between: under. companies M/s. Shatakarni Real Estates Private Limited, Registered AlIte56, hi;i"g registered office at 7th Floor tvlineiva Complex' No 94, S D' Road, Secunderabad S/o. P G- Chauhan, qSed 50 Rep. by its Authorised Person-Ajay-Chauhan, sainikpuri, Business, R/6. 'Plot No-130, Nethaji Nagar, ;;;;, b;;rp;iion Kapra, Secunderabad ... Appellant / Plaintiff AND l. ShankerNaik,S/o. NotKnowntoPlaintiff,{gedapgu! 35. yrs,Occ'Business, nlo. tl.

tlo- O-i39, Sinqam Cheruvu Tanda, Behind Tele-phone Exchange, NaChara* Village, Up-pal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist-76 2. Ramnaik,S/o. NotKnowntoPlaintiff,Agedapqu! 37yrs,Occ'Business'R/o' - Hn". O-'iaS, Singam Cheruvu Tanda, Behind Te]9qh91e Exchange, Nicharam Vittag6,uppat Mandal, Ranga Reddy Disl76 3. GooalNaik. Sio. NotKnowntoPlaintiff,Agedabout40yrs,OccBusiness' rud. u. tto. 6-136, Singam Cheruvu Tanda, BehiM Tele-phone txchange' ru. "f,ar. - Village, Up-pal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist-76 4. Peer Naik, S/o. Not Known to Plaintiff, qb-oqt 40 yrs, Occ Business' R/o' 4ggg H-No. 6-157, Singam Cheruvu Tanda, Behind Te! -ephgry Exchange' Dist-76 t'ticharamVithg6, uppat Mandal, Ranga Reddy 5. RamuluNaik,S/o. NotKnowntoPlaintiff,Agedabout45. yrs'Occ,Business' Behind Tele-phone Exchange' R/o. H. No. 6-138, Singam Cheruvu Tanda. Dist-76 GCf,rrj, Village. Up"pal Mandal, Ranga Reddy ..

Respondents / Defendants /' lA NO: 5 OF 2023 Petition under order 23 Rule 3 of cpc praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to record the compromise by set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 31-10-2022 passed in o. s. No. 1o2 of 2o13 on the file of the principal District and sessions Judge's court, Medc,hal Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, by allowing the appeal as comprom ise. Counsel for the Appellant p : Sri Raghavendra Rao Counsel for the Respondent No 1 & 4 : Sri VSRMV prasad Sanaka The Court delivered the following Common Judgment : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA I. A. No. S OF 2o23 IN/AND APPEAL SUIT No. 227 OF 2OZo coMMON JUDGMENT: in the This appeal is hled by the appellant-plaintiff judgment and decree dated appeal aggrieved by the lO2 of 2013 in the Court of 31. 10. 2022 passed in O. S. No. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri. 2.

A suit in O'S. No. 102 of 2Ol3 is frled for permanent or any person injunction against the respondents-defendants peaceful from interfering with their claiming through them possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properQz 't aggrieved by the was dismissed with costs on 3l. lO '2022 and I I the suit this appeal' said judgment plaintiff in frled I'A'No'S of pendency of the Appeal Suit' 3. During the by the plaintiff in the appeal 2023 is filed on 06. 11. 2023 appellant-plaintiff stating that' there is compromise between No'4' and respondent No. 4-defendant before the 4. The in the compromlse appeared Parties the theY have knowledge about Court and stated that entered into and voluntarily contents of the compromise memorandum of compromise. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to allow this appeal as per the terms of compromise entered between both the parties.

Howev,:r', learned counsel for the appellant intended to withdraw the appeai against respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and therefore appeal against respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, I. A. No. S of 2023 is ordered. Consequently, the Appeal Suit is disposed of in terms of comprcmise. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if anr,, shall stand closed Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t,, SECTION OFFICER \ To, (with 1 The Prrncipal District Judge, Medchal Malkaigiri District, at Malkaigiri records, if any) Rao, Advocate [OPU-C] z. On. CC tc S;i'P Raghavendra ;. o;; CC tc, Sri vSRlVlV Prasad Sanaka, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies Along with the Copy of the Memorandum of Compromise ] I VA/gh ) *a w \ ,5 ... 1' . , HIGH COURT DATED:29 t11t2024 COMMON JUDGMENT + CoMPRoMISE DECREE l. A. No. S ot 2023 S TAr 1 e in / and o ( (' ( AS. No. 22T of 2023 Z 16 JAil 2M c, , ;/, * l. pA'r cH __=. -oss ORDERING THE I. A.

AND DISPOSTNG OF THE APPEAL IN TERMS OF COMPROMISE \M 3b W I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT; HYDERABAD AS. No. 227 OF 2023 M/s. Shathakarni Real estate's private Limited, Registered under companies act 1956, having Registered office at 7th Floor Minqrva complex, No. 94, S. D Road, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Authorized Person Ajay Chauhan S/o P. G. Chauhan Aged about 50 Years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Plot No. 30, NethajiNagar, Sainikpuri, Kapra, Secunderabad. ... ... AppellanU Plaintiff AND 1. B. Shanker Nayak, S/o. B. Bimula Nayak Late Aged About 63 Years, Occ. Business, R/O H. No. 6-139, Singam Cheruvu Tanda, Behind Teleohone Exchange, Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist 76 Respondent No. '1l ... Defendant No. 1. 2. K. Peeru Naik S/o K. Bhimla Nayak Aged about 47 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 4-6-1ogl1, Singam Cheruvu Tanda, Behind Teleohone Exchange, Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist- 76. Respondent No. 4/ .... Defendant No.

4 The AppellanU Plaintiff filed the above appeal suit aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree Dated 31-10-2O22Passed in O. S No. 102 of 2O13 on the file of Principal District and sessions Judge Court Medchal Malkajgiri District, at, Malkajgiri and during the Pendency of the Appeal both parties arrived compromise and reduced the mutually agreed terms in to writing hereunder. L'td' 2 Mttre6 lPvt') t na5a For Shall'ra J o 5 ga{ S D ireclot {W '. '02. : MEMORANDU M OF COM PROMISE This Memorandum of compromise is made and executed on this the_ day ofAugust,2023 at Hyderabad by and between: Terms of compromise: 1 The RespondenuDefendant No. 1 & 4 are hereby setfled the dispute amicably with the ptaintiff 2. The ResponcJenU Defendant No. 1 & 4 hereafter and hereon words, will not interfere in to praintiff the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule of property and will not cause any interference, either from them or their henchmen, agents or any other persons claiming through them. 3.

The ResponclenUdefendant No. 1 & 4 here by declares that they have no right tifle interest over the suit schedure property and admits the Ti'e and ownership praintiff of the over the suit schedure of property. 4. The RespondenUDefendant No. 1 & 4 hereby assures the Appellants/ Plaintiff that they or their henchman or any other person claiming them, will not create Nuisance at the Suit schedule property. 5' The RespondenuDefendant No. 1 & 4 hereby assures praintiff the that they wi, cooperate with Apperants/ praintiffs in constructing compound wa, around the suit schedure property. The apperant wiil not tnterfere or claim right e existing graveyard. 14psfia i"9 $\c6' h? l\rJanaoa F\ot n/t -V'- Directol w o>a ss ,r9"- ::03: Both parties to this compromise have affixed their signature with their free will and consent in the presence of their respective counsels on record on the afore said date and vear. Ltdi . r.

653 19vt') - :o-r"' f Q, -)^ Directog IM -R€":S Appellant/ Plaintiff RespondenUDefendant No. 1 Counsel for APPellanU Plaintiff RespondenUDefendant No. 4 Counsel for Respon il efendants 1 & 4 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENry NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER FOUR TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA THE HONOURABLE SMT I. A. N O: 5 OF 2023 IN / ANB oF 2023 APPEAL SU lT NO: 227 Between: Limited, under companies M/s. Shatakarni Real Estates Privatg . Registered e4' s D' Trinoo' il/llne"rva complex' No [lIrds'6''i;ri. s 'ds-iL6;;e;-ffiie'li Road, Secunderabad S/o' P G' Chauhan' aged 50 Rep. by its Authorised Person Ajay Chauhan' sainikpuri' t't" 150, Nethaji Nagar' vears, occupat,on fi. inL"i"ilii'piot kapra, Secunderabad ... ApPellant / Plaintiff AND Known to Plaintiff, aOqu! e5. yrs' Occ Business' 1 . Shanker Naik, S/o. Not {g{. ' Exchange' bheruvu Tanda, Eehind Tele-phone ili;'il. No.

6-ies, sins;m i'i;r;;; virird", up"piirurntil, R"ng" Reddv Dist-76 to Plaintiff, a99u1 37 yrs' Occ Business' R/o' 2. Ramnaik, S/o. Not Known {Oe. O. - Tanda, Bellinq. Telgqtlqe Exchange' iirli'. o-'iss, singam cheruvu i'ii"niL, ViurgEiJpprt Mandal, Ranga Reddv Dist-76 yrs' Business' Known to Plaintiff, about 40 Occ 3. Gooal Naik, S/o. Not f9e^d " ii. oi, eehind releirhone Exchanse' Hff ]i. ffi . 'b:i 56: si";ffi tri"'ir,j Dist-76 Mandal, Ransa Reddv i't;il;;;; viriige, upiat a-0 yrs'-Ocg Business' R/o' to Plaintiff' g[out 4. Peer Naik, S/o. Not Known fOgp ' Exchange' randa, Bellnd. i{. No. 6-ib7, Singa*bG,,'u Je! -ephgle Dis! 76 Mandal, Ranga Reddv i'il"i"ir- VirngE, uppat 5. Ramulu Naik, S/o' Not Known to Plahtiff, Ag-eg. about15 yrs, o-cc. ,B',. siness' -Behind " Tanda' Telephone Exchange' ii[. 'H. *rud. d-roa, sin'gail cheiuvu Reddv Dist-76 i,ffid;;;; viri"g;. upiit Mandal, Ranga ...

Respondents / Defendants the Judgment and Order 41 of CPC against Appeal under Section 96 and on the file of the Court of in O S No' 1OZ ol 2013 Decree dated 31. 10. 2022 made at Malkajgiri' the Principal District Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District' t. A. NO. 50f 2023 Petition unde,r Order 23 Rule 3 of CpC praying that the High Court may be pleased to pass a decree in terms of the Memorandum of compromise fired therewith as between the Apperanupraintiff and RespondenuDefendant . r No. & RespondenUDefend,ant No. 4 in the said l. A No. 5 of 2023 on the file of the High Court The appear and r. A coming this day for orders as to settlement in the presence of sri p Raghavendra Rao, Advocate for the Apperant and of Sri VSRMV Prasad Sanaka, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 & 4, Apperant and Respondent No' 1 & 4 through their respective advocates having fired in r. A. No.

s of 2o24 requesting the court to pass a decree in terms the memorandum of compromise entered into between them and upon perusing the grounds appeal, judgment and decree of the Lower court and the memo of compromise purporting to have been signed by the parties and their Advocates and fired with said r. A. No. 5 0f 2024 and rt appearing from the said memorandum of compromise that the parties herein have entered into compromise and set ed the matter out of court in terms memorandum of compromise filed herein. This court Doth Record the terms of the said memorandum of compromise in originar whereof is fired in the said r. A. No. 5 0f 2024and a copy whereof is annexed hereto and DorH in terms of the said memorandum of compromise decrare . RDER and DECREE as follows: 't' That the Appeai suit be and hereby is disposed of in terms of compromise; 2' That the RespondenuDefendant No. 1 & 4 are hereby set ed the dispute amicably with the plaintiff; 3 That the RespondenuDefendant No.

1 & 4 hereafter and hereon words, wi, not interfere in to the praintiff possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule of property and will not cause any interference, either from them or their henchmen, agents or any other persons claiming through them. 4' That the RespondenvDefendant No. 1 & 4 hereby decrares that they have no right tite interest over the suit schedure property and admits the Tire and Ownership of plaintiff the over the suit schedule of property; 5- That the RespondenUDefendant No- 1 & 4 hereby assures the Appellants/Plaintiff that they or their henchmen or any other person claiming them, will not create Nuisance at the suit schedule property; 6. That the RespondenUDefendant No. 1 I 4 hereby assures the Plaintiff that they will cooperate with Appellants/Plaintiffs in constructing compound wall around the suit schedule property. The Appellant wiil not interfere or claim' rights over the existing graveyard; and 7.

That there shall be no order as to costs in lhis appeal; Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// l-;L- SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal District Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri 2. Two CD Copies VA @1 HIGH COURT DATED:29 t1112024 COMPROMISE DECREE l. A. No. S of 2023 in / and AS. No. 227 ot 2023 ORDERING THE ]. A. AND DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL IN TERMS OF COMPROMISE a t

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.