This judgment disposes of multiple revision applications and appeals challenging a partition decree. The High Court accepted a compromise petition filed under CPC and dismissed a writ petition as withdrawn due to the settlement.
The appeals and revisions were disposed of as per the compromise petition; the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
R.F.A.No.1391/2008(PAR)
C/W
HRRP No.81/2010, R.F.A.No.1381/2008(PAR) R.F.A.No.750/2009(PAR)
IN R.F.A.NO.1391/2008
BETWEEN
N NARAYANASWAMY S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
R1(A) SMT.NAGARATHNAMMA W/O .NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT 88/4, 13TH CROSS, 1ST K BLOCK, KETHAMARANAHALLI, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010
R1(B) SRI N.DINESH, S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT 254, 9TH CROSS, 1ST N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010
2
R1(C) SRI N.DEVARAJA, S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT 88/4, 13TH CROSS, 1ST K BLOCK, KETHAMARANAHALLI, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010 R1(D) SMT.SAVITHA D/O LATE N.NARAYANASWAMY AND W/O B.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED 30 YEARS RESIDING AT 229(18) II MAIN ROAD RAMACHANDRAPURA, BANGALORE- 560 021
...APPELLANTS
[BY SRI A V GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR A1(A TO D)]
AND
N SIDDARAJU S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS
3
R/O JOGIHALLI ROAD MARUTHI EXTENSION, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216
RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT VAJRAMMA W/O LATE SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O MACHENAHALLI VILLAGE, DANIDNASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. (VIDE ORDER DATED 19.10.2019 GUARDIANSHIP OF RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED)
4
RAMAMOHANAPURA, BANGALORE -21
KUM PREMA W/O S BASAVARAJU SINCE DEAD BY LRS
7 . S BASAVARAJU S/O. B SREEKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.5/1, DEFENDANT STREET 10TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE-23
8 . MASTER RAHUL S/O. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS MINOR REP. BY NEXT FRIEND & GUARDIAN SMT SULOCHANA (VIDE ORDER DATED 19.10.2019 GUARDIANSHIP OF RESPONDENT NO.5 IS DISCHARGED)
9 . DR C K UMESH S/O K KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER QUARTERS SIRA TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 216.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.MAHESHA, ADVOCAET FOR R1, R3 & R4; SRI JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI GANGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R8 AND R9; SRI G.C.SHANMUKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI H.T.VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
5
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.08.2008 PASSED IN O.S.No.6880/1990 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, CCH.NO.2, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND THE APPELLANT HEREIN PRAYS TO SET ASIDE THAT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REJECTION OF PART OF THE PRAYER IS CONCERNED AND TO DECREE THE SUIT GRANTING PARTITION AND SEPERATE POSSESSION OF 7/18TH SHARE IN THE PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES TO THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN HRRP No.81/2010
BETWEEN
SMT SHEELA GIRISH W/O H.P. GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.254, 9TH CROSS, 1ST N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI A V GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT VAJRAMMA W/O LATE SRI. SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT C/O MAHADEVAIAH, MANCHENAHALLI(POST), GANDIAN SHIVARA HOBLI, TAVAREKERE TALUK,
6
...RESPONDENT
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR & SRI K MAHESHA, ADVOCATES FOR C/R)
THIS HRRP IS FILED U/S 46 OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, R/W SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1964, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2010 PASSED IN HRC.NO.20/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S 27(2)(a) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 AND ALLOWING THE PETITION U/S 27(2) (o) & (r) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999.
IN R.F.A.No.1381/2008
BETWEEN
1 . VAJRAMMA W/O LATE SIDDARAJU AGED 42 YEARS
APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN FIRST APPELLANT VAJRAMMA
7
ALL ARE R/AT MACHENAHALLI VILLAGE DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DEAD BY HIS LR'S
ALL ARE R/AT NO.396/A, SREE SANGMESHWARA NILAYA 19-H, MAIN ROAD, 1ST N BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR,
8
BANGALORE-560 010
9
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN SULOCHANA W/O H KRISHNAPPA, 1ST WARD, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR DISTRICT-576 101
7 . DR C K UMESH S/O K KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE QUARTERS SIRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a TO d); SRI JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI GANGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R7; SRI S.V.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI H.T.VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R6 IS MINOR REPT. BY R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.08.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6880/1990 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH.NO.2), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
IN R.F.A.No.750/2009
BETWEEN
I WARD, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET
10
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 214
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI GANGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND
11
C/O H.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS RESIDENT OF JOGIHALLI ROAD, MARUTI EXTENTION CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 214.
REPRESENTED BY MINOR BY GUARDIAN SMT VAJRAMMA R/O MACHENAHALLI, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI TAVAREKERE TALUKA TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 139
D/O LATE SIDDARAJU AGED 10 YEARS REPRESENTED BY MINOR BY GUARDIAN SMT VAJRAMMA RESIDENT OF MACHENAHLLI, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI TAVAREKERE TALUKA TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 139
12
R/O NO.5/1, DEFENDANT STREET 10TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE-560 023
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4, R5; SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R4-R5 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R2; R3 -SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.08.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6880/1990 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH NO.2),DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION & SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THESE APPEALS AND HRRP COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Case called out. Parties present.
Sri.G.C.Shanmukha, learned counsel has filed vakalath for respondent No.6 in RFA No.1391/2008. He is permitted to sign the joint compromise petition.
Parties present. They have presented the
compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. The contents of the compromise petition is explained to the
13
parties in Kannada language. Parties submit that they have understood the contents of the compromise petition and depicts the true terms of settlement. There is no force, undue influence or coercion in reaching out the compromise terms. Hence, there is no impediment for this court to accept the compromise petition and dispose of the appeals in terms of the compromise petition.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
RFA No.1391/2008, RFA No.1381/2008 and RFA No.750/2009 are disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.
Office is directed to draw final decree in terms of the compromise petition appending the copy of compromise petition as part of the decree.
14
In view of the disposal of the appeals, pending applications stand disposed of.
A Memo is filed in HRRP No.81/2010 by learned counsel for petitioner-Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa.
Memo reads as under:
"It is submitted that the petitioner has vacated the premises and lis does not survive. In view of the above, this petition may be dismissed as having infructuous."
In view of the memo, HRRP No.81/2010 stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/JUDGE
SBN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeals and revision should be disposed of based on the compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC?
Whether the writ petition under Karnataka Rent Act stands withdrawn due to the lis no longer surviving?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
N Narayanaswamy S/o. Late Narasimhaiah LRS.
Smt Nagarathnamma W/o. Narayanaswamy
Sri N. Dinesh S/o Late Narayanaswamy
Sri N. Devaraja S/o Late Narayanaswamy
Smt Savitha D/o Late N. Narayanaswamy
N Siddaraju S/o Late Narasimhaiah LRS
V. Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
