Disposed

Smt. N. Gayathri Devi v. Smt. Puttamma

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2021RSA/1632/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a regular second appeal and cross-appeal arising from a partition suit. The parties amicably settled the dispute via a compromise petition supported by a registered confirmation deed asserting the appellant's absolute ownership. The Court accepted the settlement following verification of signatures and voluntary consent, setting aside the impugned judgment a

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in terms of the compromise; the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court were set aside; and the cross-appeal/objection filed by Respondent No.4 was set aside.

Smt. N. Gayathri Devi Vs Smt. Puttamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1632 OF 2016(PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.N.GAYATHRI DEVI D/O.S.NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.14 3^RD MAIN, YADAVAGERI MYSURU -570 001

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER B.N.HAUMANTHA S/O NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT BALLENAHALLI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 570 001 … APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1. SMT.PUTTAMMA W/O.LATE SRI MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶13

SMT.PUTTAMMA S/O.LATE SRI MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶14

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.3, 5^TH CROSS MAIN ROAD, KUMBAKONAM MYSURU – 570 001

¶15

¶16

MAHADEVA S/O.LATE SRI MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.C-19 MAHADESHWARA LAYOUT KUMBARKOPPALU MYSURU – 570 001

¶17

SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O.LATE SRI REVANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT THENKANAKOPPALU BILKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 570 001

¶18

SRI JAYARAMA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER M/S KAPILA CONCRETE PIPES LTD MANDYA MAIN ROAD MANDYA – 570 001 … RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI N.VAGEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2 & R-4 R-3 & R-5 DELETED V.O.D 27.10.2021)

¶20

¶21

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.04.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.281/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREED DATED 16.04.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.478/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU & EETC.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

This appeal is preferred by defendant No.4. Initially suit for partition came to be filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are plaintiffs as against the other parties to the proceedings. Appellant herein was the defendant No.4, who had purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.3, who is respondent No.5 herein. The said suit came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court, which passed an order decreeing the suit and rejecting the claim made by defendant No.2 and passed an order to the affect that the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 were entitled to ¼th share in the suit schedule property. It is also ordered that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 with regard to defendant No.2 and plaintiff’s share are not binding upon from. In the first Appellate Court cross objection came to be filed by the defendant No.2 – Gowramma,

¶26

¶27

which came to be allowed. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the first Appellate Court defendant No.4 has preferred the present appeal.

¶28

During the pendency of this appeal parties to the proceedings have amicably settled the dispute and decided to put an end to the long pending lis. Accordingly, they have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. Appellant herein is represented through GPA Holder, namely, Sri Chinnaswamy. Y.G. Son of Late Y.S. Govindarajasetty. It is stated in the compromise petition that respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 along with two other persons, namely, Harish and Mahesh T.R. who are sons of respondent No.4 – Gowramma, have arrived at full and final settlement and accordingly they have entered into a confirmation deed dated 31.07.2021, which is registered in Document No.MYN-1-02736-2021-22 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mysore (North), whereby respondents have confirmed that the appellant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also that the sale deed dated 22.11.1984 and 13.01.1993

¶29

¶30

are valid, subsisting and binding on them. A copy of the confirmation deed is produced along with compromise petition.

¶31

Accordingly, in view of the confirmation deed appellant had become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and agreed to put an end to the litigation by receiving certain amounts. The compromise petition filed by the parties are said to be read over and explained to them and after understanding the same they have affixed the signature. The parties present before the Court. In view of LTM having been affixed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, is identified by the learned counsel who has filed power on behalf of them. In order to verify the veracity of the same, Court interacted with the respondent Nos.1 and 4 who are taking care of respondent No.2, who is a spinster and staying along with her mother respondent No.4.

¶32

The parties have agreed to the terms and conditions set out in the compromise petition. It is

¶33

- 6 -

¶34

specifically admitted that the total amount agreed to receive from the appellant is Rs.36 lakhs and out of which Rs.21 lakhs is already paid by the appellant on 23.10.2021** to the respondent Nos.2 and 4 along with two other persons namely, Harish and Mahesh, who are sons of respondent No.4. The balance amount of Rs.15 lakhs is paid today by way of Demand Draft in favour of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 as per terms and conditions of the compromise petition. The terms and conditions entered into between the parties are as follows:

¶35

THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE COMPROMISE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

¶36

a. The respondent No.1,2 and 4 reiterate that the Sale Deed dated 22.11.1984 executed by Sri Mahadeva S/o. Late Sri Madegowda i.e. Respondent No.3 herein and his son Umesh registered as Document No.694/84-85 in Book No.1, Page No.16-19, Vol 966 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mysuru Taluk, in respect of the schedule property, in favour of Sri. Jayarama Shetty i.e. the Respondent No.5 herein is Valid, Subsisting and binding on them.

¶37

¶38

b. The Respondent No.1, 2 and 4 reiterate that the Sale Deed dated 13.01.1993 executed by Jayarama Shetty i.e. the Respondent No.5 herein, registered as Document No.6252/9293, at Page 160-163, Vol 1162 of Book 1, in the office of the Chikkakempe Gowda SubRegistrar, Mysuru North in favour the appellant in respect of the schedule property is Valid, Subsisting and Binding on them.

¶39

c. The Respondents confirms that the appellant has a clear and marketable title to the Schedule property and further confirm that the Sale Deed dated 22.11.1984 was executed for family necessities.

¶40

d. The appellant has agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.36,00,000 to the respondents No.1,2 and 4 out of which Rs.21,00,000/was paid on 31.07.2021 by the appellant to the Respondents No.1,2,4 and her sons at the time of registering the Deed of Confirmation dated 31.07.2021. The balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- is paid today by way of Demand Draft in favour tot he respondents No.1, 2 and 4 in the following manner;

¶41

¶42

a. Rs.10,00,000/*- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) in favour of the 1^st respondent vide Demand Draft dated 26.10.2021 bearing No.677888 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jayalakshmipuram Branch, Mysuru.

¶43

b. Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) in favour of the 2^nd respondent vide Demand Draft dated 26.10.2021 bearing No.677887 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jayalakshmipuram Branch, Mysuru.

¶44

c. Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) in favour of the 4^th respondent vide Demand Draft dated 26.10.2021 bearing No.677886 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jayalakshmipuram Branch, Mysuru.

¶45

d. The respondent No.1, 2 and 4 acknowledge the receipt of the said Demand Drafts.

¶46

e. The respondents No.1, 2 and 4 reiterate that the schedule property was the self acquired property of Late Madegowda and the 1^st respondent was the 2^nd wife of Late Madegowda

¶47

¶48

and Respondent No.2 and 4 are their children. The respondent No.3 is the son of Late Madegowda born from his first marriage. The respondents further submits that there is no other claimant in respect of the schedule property.

¶49

f. The Respondents No.1,2 and 4 admit, confirm and reiterate the recitals in the Deed of Confirmation dated 31.07.2021 and submit that the above appeal may be allowed and the judgment and Decree dated 30.04.2016 passed in R.A.No.281/2012 and the CrossAppeal/Objections filed by the Respondent No.4 passed by the Court of the II Additional District Judge at Mysuru be Set-aside and the suit may be dismissed.

¶50

g. The respondents No.1,2 and 4 agree that the amount paid under the confirmation deed and this compromise petition is towards full and final settlement and no further amount whatsoever is payable by the appellant to the respondents No.1, 2

¶51

- 10 -

¶52

and 4 and all mutual claims are hereby fully and finally settled.

¶53

h. The respondents No.1, 2 and 4 and anyone claiming through them have no claim whatsoever in respect of schedule property.

¶54

i. The Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 undertake not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the appellant.

¶55

j. The Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 undertake to withdraw all cases, complaints ,etc, if any filed against the appellant before various courts, authorities, police ,etc, within a period of thirty days from today. The parties shall co-operate and comply with the conditions in this petition.

¶56

k. The parties have entered into this compromise petition voluntarily out of their free will and without any force, coercion or influence of any person.

¶57

l. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the Judgment and Decree dated 30.04.2016 passed in

¶58

- 11 -

¶59

R.A.No.281/2012 and the CrossAppeal/Objections filed by the Respondent No.4 passed by the Court of the II Additional District Judge at Mysuru be Set-aside and the above appeal may be allowed in terms of this compromise.

¶60

Having perused the compromise petition and submission of the learned counsel and the confirmation of the same by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and appellant herein, who are all identified by their respective counsel, I do not find any impediment in allowing the compromise petition filed by the parties. It is also stated that the parties have not been put into any force, coercion or undue influence in entering into this compromise petition. Learned counsel have filed a copy of the confirmation deed and GPA along with compromise petition, which is taken on record.

¶61

In view of the compromise having entered into between parties, same is accepted. This appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court

¶62

12 -

¶63

is set side and the cross appeal/objection filed by Respondent No.4 in R.A.No.281/2012 is also set aside.

¶64

All pending IAs, if any, stands consigned to

¶65

records.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

Smt. N. Gayathri Devi v. Smt. Puttamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. N. Gayathri Devi v. Smt. Puttamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K J Devadiga Vs M Gurudatta Kamath

Sri. Vaterira Ganapathy Vs Smt. Vaterira Jyothi Mandanna

Kunchanna Gowda Vs K. v. Ganapayya

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Putta Linga Shetty

Smt Munavalli Bandamma Vs Sri Mudalgeri Channabasappa

Sri. S C Vijayakumar Vs Sri. S C Renukaswamy