sa196.09 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3232 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7307 OF 2011 Ramesh s/o Bansilal Bhandari ...Appellant Versus Purushottam s/o Ramchandra Kulkarni ...Respondent ..... Mr. A.N. Neharkar with G.K. Naik Thigle, advocates for the appellant Mr. H.V. Tungar h/f Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate for respondents ..... CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATED: 24TH JUNE, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 This is an appeal presented by the original plaintiff raising exception to the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2009, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2006 by the learned District Judge-I, Beed, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 20.12.2005 in Regular Civil Suit No. 102 of 2003 in respect of issuance of decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agent, servants and workmen from causing obstructions in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. sa196.09 -2- 2 The parties to the litigation have entered into compromise. The terms of compromise are placed on record in Regular Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2007 and the settlement has been reached before Loknyayalaya in the said matter. Regular Civil appeal No. 27 of 2007 pending before the learned District Judge-I Beed is also between the same parties and subject matter of the appeal is also the property involved in the instant second appeal. The parties have agreed to settle the dispute pending in this court in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, both the parties have presented joint application requesting to take on record the consent terms. As per the compromise arrived at between the parties, the defendant has accepted an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) in consideration of relinquishment of his right in disputed property i.e. Gat No.375 Survey No.113 admeasuring two hectares 65 R situate at Khadkat, Tq. Ashti, District Beed. The appellant herein original plaintiff has agreed to settle dispute in terms of compromise. Both the parties agreed that the decree passed by the first appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2006 needs to be quashed and set aside and the decree passed by the trial court needs to be restored. 3 The original plaintiff as well as respondent Nos. 1-B, 1-C and 1- D are present before the court and admitted the terms of settlement as sa196.09 -3- well as contentions noted in the application. Respondent 1-B is the power of attorney holder of respondent Nos. 1-A, 1-E and 1-F. Certified copy of power of attorney is placed on record. In this view of the matter, the terms of settlement are read and recorded. The defendants admit to have received amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in terms of settlement and agree to relinquish their rights in the disputed property in favour of the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, judgment and decree passed by the District Judge-I in Regular Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2006 dated 12.2.2009 to the extent of directions contained in para 4 of the operative portion of the order is quashed and set aside and the decree passed by the trial court i.e. learned C.J.J.D. Ashti on 20.12.2005 in Regular Civil Suit No. 102 of 2003 is restored. 4 Second Appeal No.196 of 2009 shall stand disposed of in terms of the settlement. Decree be drawn accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs. 5 In view of the disposal of second appeal, pending civil application Nos.7307 of 2011 and 3232 of 2009 also stand disposed of. ( R.M. BORDE. J.) rlj/ sa196.09 -4-