Disposed

Sri D G Jagachandra v. Sri D G Jagannatha Setty

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2022RFA/1268/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the first appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC against a partition decree. The parties filed a compromise petition where the appellant agreed to pay respondents market value shares via demand drafts. The court accepted the compromise and disposed of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise petition; office directed to draw up the final decree and refund permissible court fee.

Sri D G Jagachandra Vs Sri D G Jagannatha Setty — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1268/2020

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI D G JAGACHANDRA S/O LATE D S GOPALA KRISHNA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT #188, SEPPINGS ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI RAGHUNATH M.D, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI D G JAGANNATHA SETTY S/O LATE D S GOPALAKRISHNA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT 864/B, 14^TH CROSS, NEAR SUNDAR MAHAL CHOWLTRY, 2^ND PHASE, GIRINAGARA, BENGALURU 560085

¶15

SRI D G NARAYANA MURTHY S/O LATE D S GOPALAKRISHNA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT #48, JISHNU NIVAS, BEHIND KNSS SCHOOOL, NEAR LVS, APARTMENTS,

¶16

¶17

T C PALYA MAIN ROAD, ANANDAPURA, K R PURAM, BENGALURU 560036

¶18

SRI D G RAJENDRA S/O LATE D S GOPALAKRISHNA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT 11, ‘E’ STREET, MUTHYALAMMA TEMPLE STREET, SEPPINGS ROAD CROSS, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶19

SRI D G PATTABHI S/O LATE D S GOPALAKRISHNA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT #21, LAXMI RESIDENCY, SHIVAN CHETTY GARDEN, BENGALURU 560042

¶20

SMT T N NAGAMMA D/O LATE D S GOPALAKRISHNA SETTY, W/O T L NAGABHUSHANAM, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT #4108/23, ‘C’ 5^TH MAIN, K R ROAD, TATA SILK FARM, OBALAPPA GARDEN, BENGALURU 560070

¶21

SMT H NALINI D/O LATE D S GOPALA KRISHNA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O P HARIHARAN, R/AT #59/70, SARKAR MANDI STREET, VELLORE 04, TAMILNADU

¶22

SMT ANNAPURNA D/O LATE D S GOPALAKRISHNA SETTY, W/O MYLARIGUPTHA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 114, 7^TH MAIN, 1^ST SECTOR, 8^TH CROSS, SOS POST,

¶23

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

NOBONAGAR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560076

¶26

(BY SRI MURTHY.K, ADV.)

¶27

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.12.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.2089/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶28

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’ THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Heard the learned counsels.

¶31

The appellant and all the respondents including

¶32

the legal representative of the 5^th respondent – respondent No.5(a) are present before the Court. A joint memo under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 89(1) CPC is filed. The same reads as under:

¶33

“UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 R/W SEC. 89(1) CPC THE PARTIES BEG TO STATE AS UNDER:

¶34

The Appellant has agreed for the offer of the Respondents to purchase the shares of the Respondents @ Rs. 92,00,000/(Rupees Ninety Two Lakhs only).

¶35

¶36

The Appellant has tendered the aforesaid amounts to the Respondents as under all drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd:

¶37

---------------------------- Demand Draft No. ----------------------------	--------------------- Amount ---------------------	--------------- Date ---------------
a) 614076 (Resp No.1)	Rs. 13,14,286/-	05.04.2022
b) 614077 (Resp No.2)	Rs. 13,14,286/-	05.04.2022
c) 614078 (Resp No.3)	Rs. 13,14,286/-	05.04.2022
d) 614083 (Resp No.4)	Rs. 13,14,286/-	05.04.2022
e) 614080 (Resp No.5a)	Rs. 13,14,286/-	05.04.2022
f) 614082 (Resp No.6)	Rs. 13,14,286/-	05.04.2022
g) 614081 (Resp No.7) ----------------------------	Rs. 13,14,286/- ---------------------	05.04.2022 ---------------

¶38

Which sum the Respondents do hereby accept and acknowledge the same as full and final settlement of their claims.

¶39

The Respondents concede that there are no other claims against the Appellant or the Schedule Property or any property belonging to the Appellant.

¶40

The Respondent further confirm that the Appellant is at liberty to enjoy the suit schedule property as absolute owner with full powers of disposition in his own discretion without any interference from the Respondents or their heirs.

¶41

The respondents have no-objection for passing a Final Decree allotting the Schedule Property to the Appellant and further the Respondents have no-objection for the Appellant to take a Final Decree in his name and register the same before the Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar.

¶42

The Parties submit that the aforesaid compromise is out of free will, without any pressure and the Parties have understood the terms of the compromise and have signed the

¶43

¶44

same and the compromise shall not be questioned or re-opened at any party’s wish at any point of time.

¶45

The Parties therefore, pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to accept the compromise petition and direct the Registery to draw Final decree in terms of the Compromise Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶46

Sd/Sd/Advocate for Appellant. Appellant”

¶47

The appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 02.12.2019 whereby the trial Court was pleased to

¶48

allow the suit of the plaintiffs – respondents herein excluding respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7. The learned counsel

¶49

Sri K Murthy files power on behalf of them. It is seen that the same counsel has also represented them before the trial Court. The suit for partition came to be decreed holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/8^th share in the ‘A’ schedule property. The suit in respect of ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties came to be dismissed and liberty came to be reserved to the plaintiffs to file a separate petition

¶50

under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC for the purpose of

¶51

¶52

determination of mesne profits. Today it is submitted that the parties who share the same bloodline have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and that in respect of partitioning suit schedule ‘A’ property the appellant and the respondents have concluded the valuation of the suit schedule ‘A’ property and pursuant to the same the appellant and the respondents have agreed that the said property would be retained by the appellant subject to payment of market value and equal distribution amongst the respondents. in furtherance of the said resolution the appellant today is paying a sum of Rs.13,14,286/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Eightysix only) as the respective share of each of the respondents and the respondents have agreed to release their right, title and interest as conferred upon them and have agreed for decreeing the appeal in terms of the compromise petition. The respondents have affirmed the same.

¶53

The Demand Drafts bearing Nos.614076, 614077, 614078, 614083, 614080, 614082 and 614081 dated 05.04.2022 respectively for the sum of Rs.

¶54

¶55

13,14,286/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-six only) as noted in para 2 of the compromise petition are handed over to the respondents and respondents admit the receipt of the same. In that view of the matter, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

¶56

Office to draw up the decree accordingly and refund the permissible Court fee.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

ykl CT-HR

Sri D G Jagachandra v. Sri D G Jagannatha Setty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D G Jagachandra v. Sri D G Jagannatha Setty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jupiter Marines Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Nayaks Finance & Investment (R) Kota

Smt.Jenifer Lolita.C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ganapathi Bajanthri Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri P S Suryavamshi Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Sathish M.R. Vs State of Karnataka