Allowed

Byrachar S/O Late Kalachar v. D B Mayachar S/O Byrachar

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2021RSA/965/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second appeal arising from a property partition suit where all parties entered a compromise. The court accepted the petition to correct a typographical error in survey numbers and to incorporate additional properties, modifying the lower court's judgment and decree accordingly. Appeals against respondent Nos 2 and 3 were previously dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the first appellate court were modified in terms of the compromise petition to correct a survey number and incorporate additional properties.

Byrachar S/O Late Kalachar Vs D B Mayachar S/O Byrachar — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶6

R.S.A. No.965/2018 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BYRACHAR S/O LATE KALACHAR

¶9

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶10

D.B.SHEKARACHAR S/O BYRACHAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶11

D.B.PRAKASH S/O BYRACHAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶12

D.B.MOHANKUMAR S/O BYRACHAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶13

APPELLANTS ARE RESIDENTS OF DODDENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK – 573 103

¶14

HASSAN DISTRICT

¶15

... APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

D.B MAYACHAR S/O BYRACHAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶19

H.C.MOHAN KUMAR

¶20

S/O ESHWARACHAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶22

RAGHU S/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENT ARE RESIDENTS OF DODDENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI

¶23

¶24

ARSIKERE TALUK – 573 103 HASSAN DISTRICT

¶25

(APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED AS AGAINST RESPONDENT Nos.2 and 3 VIDE ORDER DATED 9.08.2021)

¶26

(BY SRI.GANESH R, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 DISMISSED V/O DATED 09.08.2021)

¶27

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.02.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.12.2015 IN O.S.NO.34/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE.

¶28

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

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

parties.

¶32

The parties in this appeal have entered into compromise and have filed Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure. The same is taken on record.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that in the compromise petition there is a

¶34

¶35

typographical mistake crept in at page No.11 with regard to item No.2 of ‘B’ schedule property which has to be modified as survey No.511/1 instead of survey No.511/11 and same is permitted to be amended in the compromise petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed IA.I of 2021 seeking to incorporate some more properties into the schedule of the compromise petition. In view of allowing the Application IA.I of 2021, filed by the respondent incorporating to properties into the schedule to the compromise petition, there is no impediment for incorporating those two properties in the compromise petition.

¶37

Appellants and respondents are present

¶38

before the Court and they had been identified by their learned counsel.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that he is not seeking any relief insofar as

¶40

¶41

respondent Nos.2 and 3 and they have to be deleted. The parties to the compromise petition have stated that they have entered into the settlement on their own volition without any undue influence or force and accordingly, they submitted that the compromise petition be accepted.

¶42

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018 in R.A No.22/2016 by the first appellate Court and the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2015 in O.S.No.34/2012 on the file of the trial Court is hereby modified in terms of the compromise petition.

¶43

Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of the compromise petition.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

HB/-

Byrachar S/O Late Kalachar v. D B Mayachar S/O Byrachar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Byrachar S/O Late Kalachar v. D B Mayachar S/O Byrachar

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

Mirza Mazharulla Vs Anwer Beig

Smt Chowdamma Vs Srinivasa

Sri K a Arunachalam Vs Sri B Manjunath

Smt. Pandikanda Bhagya Vs Sri. P. S. Palangappa

Sri Gangarudraiah Vs Smt Mangalamma

Smt Meera Bai Vs Smt Radhamma