Bombay High Court
SHANTINATH TATOBA CHOUGULEversusNEMINATH TATOBA CHOUGULE
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The consent terms were accepted, and the earlier judgments and decrees were set aside, with the appeal decreed in accordance with the settlement.
Summary
The appellant, Shantinath Chougule, and the respondent, Neminath Chougule, real brothers, filed a second appeal challenging earlier decrees against the appellant in a civil suit and a subsequent appeal. Both parties appeared before the court and presented a six‑page Consent Terms dated 08‑Oct‑2026, indicating an amicable settlement of the dispute. The court verified that the parties understood the terms in Marathi and that the consent was voluntarily signed. Upon reviewing the consent, the court found no violation of public policy. Consequently, the court set aside the earlier judgment and decree of the District Judge (10‑Jan‑2022) and the original trial court decree (21‑Jun‑2016), and decreed the appeal in accordance with the consent terms.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a mutually agreed consent decree on previously rendered civil judgments and decrees?
Subjects
- settlement
- consent decree
- civil appeal
- set aside judgment
- family dispute
- compromise
Judgment
911-SA-388-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2022
1. Shantinath Tatoba Chougule,
Age : 66 Yrs, Occ. Agriculture
R/o Plot No. 38, Satale Nagar,
Yashwantnagar, Sangli,
Dist. Sangli ...Appellant
Versus
1. Neminath Tatoba Chougule,
Age : 56, Occ. Business
R/o S. N. Kirana Stores,
Near Laxmi Temple, 100 ft Road,
Basweshwar Colony, Sangli,
District Sangli ...Respondent
Mr. Kuldeep Nikam a/w Tejshri Kanase, Advocate for the
Appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Koregave a/w Rohan Ghatage, Advocate for the
Respondent.
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 8th October, 2026.
JUDGEMENT :-
1. This Second Appeal is circulated pursuant to the praecipe dated
06.10.2026, which is marked with “X” for identification. In view of the
statement made by Mr Kuldeep Nikam, learned Advocate for the
Appellant, that the parties have settled the dispute and desire to file
Arjun 1
911-SA-388-2022.doc
consent terms, circulation was granted, and this Appeal was ordered to
be listed today.
2. Heard, Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned Advocate for the Appellant
and Mr. Sandeep Koregave, learned Advocate for the Respondent.
3. The subject matter of this Second Appeal is the Judgment and
Decree dated 10.01.2022, passed by the District Judge-1, Sangli
(“Appellate Court”), in Regular Civil Appeal No. 263 of 2016, by which
the Appellate Court has maintained the Judgment and Decree dated
21.06.2016, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli
(“Trial Court”), in Regular Civil Suit No. 344 of 2012, by which the
Regular Civil Suit No. 263 of 2016, filed by the Appellant, was
dismissed.
4. In Regular Civil Suit No. 344 of 2012, the Appellant is the
Plaintiff and the Respondent is the Defendant. The challenge in this
Appeal concerns the concurrent decrees passed against the Appellant in
Regular Civil Suit No. 344 of 2012 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 263 of
2016.
5. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Mr.
Sandeep Koregave, learned Advocate for the Respondent, state that the
Arjun 2
911-SA-388-2022.doc
Appellant and the Respondent, who are real brothers, have amicably
settled the dispute in Regular Civil Suit No. 344 of 2012 and entered
into a compromise by signing the Consent Terms dated 08.10.2026.
6. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned Advocate for the Appellant, states
that the Appellant is present in Court and has been identified by him.
7. Mr. Sandeep Koregave, learned Advocate for the Respondent,
states that the Respondent is present in Court and has been identified
by him.
8. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam and Mr. Sandeep Koregave, learned
Advocates for the parties, jointly tender the Consent Terms dated
08.10.2026 (6 pages), signed by the Appellant and the Respondent, as
well as by Advocate Mr. Kuldeep Nikam and Advocate Mr. Sandeep
Koregave. The Consent Terms dated 08.10.2026 is taken on record and
marked with “X-1” for identification.
9. The Appellant and Respondent are well conversant with Marathi,
as submitted by their respective Advocates Mr. Kuldeep Nikam and Mr.
Sandeep Koregave. When asked in Marathi, the Appellant and the
Respondent state that the consent terms (X-1) are as per their say and
that their respective Advocates read over the contents to them. They
Arjun 3
911-SA-388-2022.doc
state that they have signed the consent terms (X-1) and identify their
signatures on the same.
10. Perused the consent terms dated 08.10.2026 (X-1). The contents
do not indicate that they are against public policy.
11. In view of the aforesaid statements made by Mr. Kuldeep Nikam,
learned Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Sandeep Koregave, learned
Advocate for the Respondent, in the presence of the Appellant and
Respondent, the Consent Terms are accepted.
12. Consequently, the Judgment and decree dated 10.01.2022 passed
in Regular Civil Appeal 263 of 2016 and Judgment and Decree dated
21.06.2016, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 344 of 2012, are set aside
and the present Appeal is decreed in terms of the Consent Terms dated
08.10.2026 (X-1).
13. In view of the above, Second Appeal No. 388 of 2022 is decreed
in terms of the Consent Terms dated 08.10.2026 (X-1). The decree shall
be drawn accordingly.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA Arjun 4
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.10.09
21:59:55
+0530
Checking your session…