{1} fa95307.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.953 OF 2007 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2011 DATED 30/08/2011 (FOR COMPROMISE/SETTLEMENT) 1 Smt.Mangalabai Hiralal Jain, age: 42 years, Occ: Household; 2 Amit Hiralal Jain, age: 25 years, Occ: Agri., 3 Yogesh Hiralal Jain, age: 22 years, Occ: Agri., Appellants No.1 to 3 are Resident of village Nhalod, Tq.Dhule. 4 Bhatiba w/o Rajendra Bafana, age; 29 years, Occ: Household, R/o Nardana, Tq. Shindkheda; 5 Bhavanabai w/o Bherulal Sethiya, age: 25 years, Occ: Household, R/o Taloda. Appellants Versus 1 Smt.Kamalbai Madanlal Jain, age: 69 years, Occ: Household; 2 Sharad Madanlal Jain, age: 42 years, Occ: Labour; 3 Rajesh Madanlal Jain, age: 42 years, Occ: Labour; {2} fa95307.odt 4 Chandrakant Madanlal Jain, age: 28 years, Occ: Labour; All R/o in between Lane 4 to 5, Kisan Batti Khunt, Dhule. 5 Sau.Ashabai Vijay Jadhav, age: 52 years, Occ: service, R/o Alankar Housing Society, Near Natraj Talkies, Dhule. 6 Nandabai Umesh Swami, age: 48 years, Occ: Household, R/o Anjad, Tq. Badvani (M.P.). 7 Sau.Rajanibai Kamlesh Swami, age: 43 years, Occ: Household, R/o Lane 4 & 5, Kisan Bhatti, Khunt, Dhule. 8 Sau.Sudha Ravindra Patil, age: 34 years, Occ: Household, R/o Chitod Road, Dhule. Respondents Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the appellants. Mr.S.S.Deve, advocate for respondents no.1 to 8. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 30th August, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 This is an appeal by original defendants raising exception to the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2007, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule in Special Civil Suit No. 26/2006. {3} fa95307.odt 2 The suit was presented by Respondents-plaintiffs claiming partition and separate possession of the immovable ancestral property. The suit was decreed partly against which original defendants no.1 to 5 have presented instant appeal. 3 During the pendency of instant appeal, parties have entered into compromise and the original plaintiffs – Respondents herein have agreed to accept cash amount in lieu of share in the immovable property. The concerned respondents – original plaintiffs are stated to have received the sum mentioned in para 4(ii) of the terms of settlement. The concerned respondents – original plaintiffs, in consideration of receipt of amount, relinquished their share in the ancestral immovable property. 4 The terms of settlement are duly signed by the original plaintiffs as well as defendants and the parties have been identified by the learned Counsel for respective parties. The terms of settlement are duly verified on oath before the Oath Officer. The terms are thus read and recorded. The parties to the litigation - original plaintiffs as well as defendants are present before the Court and they admit correctness of the terms stated in the settlement. The terms are explained to the respective parties by the learned Counsel appearing on their behalf and they have understood the terms recorded in the settlement/compromise deed {4} fa95307.odt and they do admit correctness thereof. 5 In this view of the matter, appeal presented by the appellants deserves to be allowed. The decree dated 26.04.2007, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule in Special Civil Suit No.26/2006, is quashed and set aside and the same is substituted by the terms of settlement placed on record. The appeal is, thus, decreed in terms of the compromise. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/fa95307