K CHANDRAHASA SHETTY Vs. JAYARAMA SASANI
LAWS(KAR)-1969-11-12
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on November 18,1969

K.CHANDRAHASA SHETTY Appellant
VERSUS
JAYARAMA SASANI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MR. HOLLA,WESTERN E.C. V. KAILASH [REFERRED TO]
PANNALAL V. KISHANLAL [REFERRED TO]
KALPA VS. SITA RAM [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS SINGH CHAUHAN VS. BAWA SINGH CHAUHAN [REFERRED TO]
KUPPUSWAMI REDDI VS. PAVANAMBAL [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN NAIR VS. RAYARAPPAN NAIR [REFERRED TO]
MISRILAL JALAMCHAND VS. SOBHACHAND JALAMCHAND [REFERRED TO]
PUTTO LAL VS. HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA DHIRAJ SUMERSINGHJI OF KISHENGARH [REFERRED TO]
MIRZA HUSAIN YAR BEG VS. RADHA KISHAN [REFERRED TO]
QADRI JAHAN BEGAM VS. FAZAL AHMAD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KAUSHALYA DEVI ALIAS LEKHI BAI VS. HARIVANSH LAL [LAWS(DLH)-1996-5-9] [REFERRED .]
HARI SINGH VS. RAM KUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-1-12] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revision petition is directed against the Order of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, South Kanara, passed in MA. No.21 of 1965.
(2.)The respondent filed OS.256 of 1964 for cancellation of a registered deed of sale dated 20-8-1943 against the present petitioner and others. The present petitioner, during the course of the suit, filed an application under Or.XXIII, R.3 read with S.151 CPC. praying that a decree be drawn up in terms of the compromise, according to which the suit was to be dismissed as having been settled out of Court. The plaintiff-respondent contended that there was no agreement as set up by the present petitioner that he had not received the sum of Rs.500 as mentioned in the endorsement to the memo of compromise and that the document had been brought about fraudulently and by misrepresentation. According to the respondent, his signatures were taken on a paper as also a printed form of vakalat representing that an adjournment of the suit was to be obtained and his signatures were required on them. The learned Munsiff recoTded the evidence and came to the conclusion that the suit had been settled out of Court and the same was accordingly required to be dismissed.
(3.)The plaintiff then preferred a CMA.21 of 1965 in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore, SK. The learned Civil Judge took a different view, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the learned Munsiff and directed him to take the suit on file and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The defendant-petitioner has app-roachad this Court in revision.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.