The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC against a partition suit decree. The Court recorded a compromise petition filed by all parties and set aside the original judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge.
Impugned judgment and decree set aside; appeal allowed per terms of compromise petition; costs to parties.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
RFA NO.958 OF 2013 (PAR)
BETWEEN :
C. K. VISHWANATH S/O C. S. KRISHNARAJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O NO.491, 2ND MAIN 3RD CROSS, LOKANAYAKA NAGAR METAGALLI, MYSORE – 570 016 … APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR KASHINATH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
BOTH ARE R/O NO.121 RAMANNA COMPOUND VINAYAKNAGAR VARTUR MAIN ROAD GUNJUR, BANGALORE – 560 087
2
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O NO.17, 6TH CROSS INDRAGANDHI STREET UDAYANAGAR, NEAR TIN FACTORY BANGALORE – 560 016 … RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VASANTHALAKSHMI H. V., ADV. FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. SRIDEVI, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.02.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.26452/2008 ON THE FILE OF XXVIIIADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2013 passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, at Mayohall unit, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit in O.S.No.26452/2008, the defendant No.1 therein has filed this appeal.
3
present before the Court and are duly identified by their respective counsel. The appellant and respondents state that they have understood the terms of compromise and they have affixed their signature to it. They pray that the appeal may be allowed in terms of the compromise petition.
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise petition dated 19.04.2021;
(ii) The judgment and decree dated 23.02.2013 passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, at Mayohall unit, Bengaluru, in the suit in O.S.No.26452/2008 is hereby set aside;
(iii) Parties to bear their own costs;
4
(iv) Office to draw the modified decree accordingly;
(v) Registry to verify and refund the court fee to the appellant, if he is so entitled in accordance with law;
Sd/JUDGE
MH/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the appeal based on the terms of the compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
C. K. VISHWANATH
C. S. KRISHNARAJ
SMT. C. K. CHAYA
SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI
M.I.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
