Allowed

Sri K Narayana v. Sri K Kuppuswamy Naidu

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2023RFA/1125/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal involved a partition suit. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court decree upon recording a compromise where respondents relinquished their shares for monetary consideration. The compromise was permitted subject to the interests of a deleted respondent and a mortgagee bank.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.03.2012 were set aside and the suit was decreed according to the compromise petition.

Sri K Narayana Vs Sri K Kuppuswamy Naidu — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:46902-DB RFA No.1125/2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1125/2012 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI K NARAYANA

¶9

SINCE DIED BY LRS

¶10

1a) SMT GIRIJA K NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶11

1b) SMT K NAVYA D/O SRI K NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶12

1c) SRI K DARSHAN S/O SRI K NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT NO 105/6, 2^ND CROSS II MAIN, TATA SILK FARM BASAVANAGUDI,

¶15

BANGALORE - 560 004 … APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI.AVINASH B C, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI K KUPPUSWAMY NAIDU S/O KONDAIAH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO 1, I FLOOR, 15^TH MAIN 35^TH CROSS, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 041

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:46902-DB RFA No.1125/2012

¶21

SRI.LAXMANA S/O LATE KONDAIAH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO 9/4, 13^TH MAIN 35^TH ‘A’ CROSS, OPP. RAGHAVENDRA MUTT 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 041

¶22

SMT NEELAVENI C/O T SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO 1, 15^TH MAIN 35^TH ‘A’ CROSS, 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 041 (DELETED V/C/O DATED 21.12.2023) … RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. DHANALAKSHMI K, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.VAISHAK V, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R3 IS DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.12.2023)

¶24

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.03.2012 PASSED IN O.S.7176/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, CCH-16, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶25

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Learned Counsel for the appellants submits second set of appeal memo along with other copies. Office objection in that regard stood complied.

¶28

Smt. Dhanalakshmi.K and Sri Vaishak.V, learned Counsel submit vakalat for respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively with no objection of the previous Counsel.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:46902-DB RFA No.1125/2012

¶31

Appellant Nos.1(a) to (c), respondent Nos.1 and 2 and their Counsel are present before the Court.

¶32

Parties are duly identified by their respective

¶33

Counsel.

¶34

Appellants’ Counsel files memo for deleting the name of respondent No.3/defendant No.4.

¶35

This is an appeal by the legal representative of deceased defendant No.2 in O.S.No.7176/2000 on the file of XVII-Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-16), Bengaluru. By the said judgment and decree the trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/present respondent No.1 for partition only in respect of plaint schedule-A item No.1 property and dismissed the suit in respect of other properties and declaration.

¶36

Respondent No.3 was defendant No.4 in the suit. The records indicate that before trial Court she sailed with the present appellants. Under the circumstances, the appellants are permitted to delete the name of respondent No.3 at their risk. It is made clear that the compromise recorded in this case does not bind her interest, if any.

¶37

Appellants’ Counsel is permitted to amend the cause title of the appeal memo accordingly. He submits the

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46902-DB RFA No.1125/2012

¶39

copy of the amended appeal memo and the same is taken on record.

¶40

Appellant Nos.1(a) to (c), respondent Nos.1 and 2 and their Counsel submit the compromise petition under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC.

¶41

Heard the parties on the compromise petition.

¶42

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 admit that they have agreed to give-up their shares in the properties by receiving Rs.65,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- respectively. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 admit the receipt of demand drafts for Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively and execute the registered Confirmation Deed and Release Deed on receiving balance amount as agreed in future. There was a charge of Apex Bank Ltd., Padmanabhanagar Branch, Bengaluru on plaint schedule-A item No.1 of the property for the loan lent by it.

¶43

Both parties and their Counsel submit that appellant Nos.1(a) to (c) are negotiating with the Bank for one time settlement of the loan and this compromise between the parties in any way does not affect the interest of the Bank. Satisfied that compromise between the appellants and respondent Nos.1

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:46902-DB RFA No.1125/2012

¶46

and 2 is admissible in law subject to the interest of respondent No.3 and aforesaid Apex Bank Ltd. Subject to their interest this compromise is recorded. The appeal deserves to be allowed accordingly. Hence the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The appeal is allowed.

¶49

The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.03.2012 of the trial Court in O.S.No.7176/2000 on the file of XVIIAdditional City Civil Judge (CCH-16), Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶50

Suit is decreed in terms of the compromise petition. However the said compromise shall not bind the interest of defendant No.4 and interest of any other third party.

¶51

Draw decree accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

PKN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri K Narayana v. Sri K Kuppuswamy Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Narayana v. Sri K Kuppuswamy Naidu

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

Sri. K. C. Poornesh Vs Smt. M. M. Bindu

The State of Karnataka Vs M N Lokesh S/O Late M S Nanjappa Gowda

Sri. C Mahadeva Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt. Chandana. K Vs Jayakrishna. R

Sri K Kuppaswamy Naidu Vs Smt Girija K Narayan

Smt. Rekha Vs Dodda Yellappa Talavara