Dismissed

Shri P N Krishnappa v. Smt. Parvathamma Dead by Lrs Smt Meenakshi

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2022RSA/131/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal regarding property dispute, the Karnataka High Court accepted a joint compromise petition, found no duress, and disposed of the appeal accordingly. The compromise included an admission by respondents to a further sub-division of land allotment and the handing over of possession of certain properties.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition filed by the parties.

Shri P N Krishnappa Vs Smt. Parvathamma Dead by Lrs Smt Meenakshi — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.131 OF 2021 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI.P.N.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶9

SHRI.VENKATARAYAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶10

SHRI.P.N.CHOWDAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT PETHANDAHALLI VILLAGE BYRAKUR HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR - 563 132

¶12

...APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH K.V, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND

¶15

SMT.PARVATHAMMA DEAD BY LR'S

¶16

¶17

SMT.MEENAKSHI D/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AND LATE PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶18

SHRI.SHIVASHANKAR S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AND LATE PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶19

ALL ARE RESIDING AT PETHANDAHALLI VILLAGE BYRAKUR HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR - 563 132

¶20

…..RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.LOKESHA D.K., ADVOCATE FOR R.1 & R.2)

¶22

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.09.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.66/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.02.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.60/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULBAGAL AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The captioned regular second appeal is filed by the defendants questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

¶27

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

¶28

as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶29

Today, a joint compromise petition is filed by the defendants and plaintiffs. The parties present before this Court are identified by their respective counsel. On query to the plaintiffs, who have benefit of a decree, they submit that they have voluntarily entered into an amicable settlement. It is also submitted that they are satisfied with the extent of the property that is allotted to them under the joint compromise petition. It is also submitted by both parties that they have voluntarily accepted terms and conditions of the settlement and have not complained any duress and coercion at the hands of the defendants, while defendants admit that they have voluntarily agreed to allot five items of lands, which are reflected in the paragraph

¶30

¶31

No.2 of the compromise petition. The defendants also admit that they have handed over possession of portion of properties, which are reflected in the compromise petition.

¶32

While examining compromise petition, it was found that there was no specific clause indicating handing over the possession. Both counsel on record and respective parties submit that there is no dispute in regard to handing over possession. The said clause was permitted to be inserted in the open Court. The defendants have no objection for incorporating the clause in the compromise petition at paragraph No.4.

¶33

Both counsel on record submit that based on this compromise petition, they agreed to carry out further sub division in terms of allotment made under the compromise petition. On examination of compromise petition, I would find that this compromise is lawful. The said compromise is lawful and the same is entered into out of their free will and consent. None of the parties, who are signatories to

¶34

¶35

the compromise petitioner, have complained any duress, coercion or undue influence. This compromise petition is admitted and is taken on record.

¶36

The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the joint

¶37

compromise petition.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

NBM

Shri P N Krishnappa v. Smt. Parvathamma Dead by Lrs Smt Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri P N Krishnappa v. Smt. Parvathamma Dead by Lrs Smt Meenakshi

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

M N Bramhadevaiah Vs Smt. Sudharathna

Shivappa Vs Shivamma

M N Bramhadevaiah Vs Navarathna M N

Smt. Mahalaxmi Vs Sri Manjunatha

Canara Workshops Limited Vs Sri Sundara Poojary

Kadappa Satyappa Terani Vs Siddappa Khandappa Terani