The High Court disposed of a Regular Second Appeal regarding a property dispute. The parties filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, agreeing to a settlement involving the relinquishment of land and the resolution of remaining claims.
Appellant agrees to relinquish 1 acre 27 guntas; parties bear own costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
R.S.A.NO.435/2003 (DEC.)
BETWEEN:
SHIVANANDAPPA MAJOR, S/O CHANNABASAPPA UKKUND OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ARALIKATTI TQ: HIREKERUR DT: HAVERI.
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI.P.G.MOGALI, ADV)
AND:
1. BASANAGOUDA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR SMT THIRUKAVVA W/O.LATE BASANAGOUDA BANNIHATTI MAJOR, R/O ARALIKATTI TQ: HIREKERUR, DT: HAVERI AMENDED AS PER ORDER DT.1.6.2005.
TQ: RANEBENNUR DT: HAVERI
2
(BY SRI.AVINASH BANAKAR FOR SRI.F.V.PATIL, ADV)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.2.2003 PASSED IN R.A.NO.45/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), RANEBENNUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.7.99 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4/86 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), HIREKERUR.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04/02/2003 passed in R.A.No.45/1999 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Ranebennur, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hirekerur, dated 06.07.1999 in
3
O.S.No.4/1986 for considering the following substantial questions of law:
4
v) Whether the courts below are right in decreeing the suit, without considering the point regarding non-joinder of necessary parties as the mother and aunt of the respondents were not impleaded?
vi) In view of the facts and circumstances established in the case, whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, affirmed by the lower appellate court is justified in law?
5
parties is placed on record. The appellant and the respondents are present before the court. Their presence is recorded. The compromise petition dated 04.10.2012 reads thus:
“ The appellant and respondents respectfully submit the following compromise petition as per the terms mentioned below;
Judge (Sr.Dn.) Ranebennur confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4/1986 dated 06.07.1999 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hirekerur.
6
discussion the parties have agreed to settle the matter by way of compromise and the terms of the compromise are as under:
a) The appellant herein has agreed to relinquish 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.1/34/1/1+2 situated at Aralikatti village in Hirekerur taluk, District Haveri and the same has been described in the below mentioned schedule.
b) It is submitted that the appellant has agreed to hand over the possession of the schedule property of this compromise petition to the respondents and respondents also agreed that they will not claim any rights whatsoever against the appellant in respect of remaining portion of suit schedule property.
c) The respondents will have a right to enter their names in the concerned revenue records and the appellant is not having any objection for the same.
7
3. Wherefore the parties of this compromise
petition pray that this Hon’ble Court may be dispose off the above said appeal in terms of this compromise petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE
The land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas out of 3 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.1/34/1/1+2 situated at Aralikatti village in Hirekerur taluk, District Haveri.
East: The remaining land of respondents in Sy.No.1/34/1/1+2
West: The land of the appellant in Sy.No.1/34/1/1+2 North:The land of Shekappa Ukkund
South:The land of Subash Ukkund.”
Parties to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.
The efforts made by the counsel appearing for the parties in
settling the matter is placed on record.
SD/JUDGE
Jm/-
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shivanandappa Major
Basanagouda
Smt. Thirukavva
Smt. Iravva
Smt. Basavva
Fakeerappa
N.K. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
