Disposed

Smt Rasal Kanwar v. Sajjan Raj Kothari

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023RFA/1733/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC against a partition decree. The appellants and respondents joinedly filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, which the court accepted, leading to an order disposing of the appeal and directing a modified decree.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise petition; Office directed to pass a modified decree.

Smt Rasal Kanwar Vs Sajjan Raj Kothari — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36429 RFA No. 1733 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶6

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1733 OF 2012 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RASAL KANWAR, W/O LATE R. SHANTILAL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, NO.308, SRINIVASA TEMPLE STREET, OLD TOWN, MANDYA CITY.

¶9

S. MAHENDRA, S/O LATE R. SHANTHILAL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, KOUTONS NANDA APPARELS, V.V. ROAD, MANDYA CITY.

¶10

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. P. D. SURANA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

AND:

¶14

SAJJAN RAJ KOTHARI, S/O LATE R. SHANTHILAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT AT NO. 368, BAZAR STREET, MANDYA CITY.

¶15

S. KAMAL CHAND KOTHARI, S/O LATE SHANTHILAL,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36429 RFA No. 1733 of 2012

¶17

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, MAHENDRA ENTERPRISES, R.P. ROAD, MANDYA CITY.

¶18

SMT. PRAMILA, W/O H.C. JAIN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT PREM KIRAN APARTMENTS, 4TH FLOOR, PUTTANNA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶19

SMT. RAJKUMARI, W/O PRAKASH CHAND, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, KEMPANNA STRET, DODDAMAVALLI, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶20

SMT. SHOBHA BAI, W/O VIMAL KUMAR MUTHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO. 251, JAIN TEMPLE ROAD, (O.P.H ROAD), BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H. B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3, R4, R5 - NOTICE SERVED)

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2012 PASSED IN O.S.26/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.), MANDYA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36429 RFA No. 1733 of 2012

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Parties are present with their respective counsels.

¶28

They jointly present a compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC signed by them and their respective advocates.

¶29

On enquiry with the parties, with regard to the terms of compromise, they submit that they have settled the matter amicably after understanding the terms of the compromise petition without there being any force, undue influence and coercion.

¶30

Accordingly, there is no impediment for this

¶31

Court to dispose of the appeal in terms of the compromise petition. Hence, the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of

¶34

Compromise Petition.

¶35

ii. Office is directed to pass a modified

¶36

decree in terms of Compromise

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36429 RFA No. 1733 of 2012

¶38

Petition appending the copy of the Compromise Petition as part of the

¶39

decree.

¶40

iii. No order as to costs.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51 CT: BHK

Smt Rasal Kanwar v. Sajjan Raj Kothari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rasal Kanwar v. Sajjan Raj Kothari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Chinnappa Vs Sri C Krishnappa

Sri Jayarama Reddy S/O Late Muniswamappa Vs Sri Venkataswamy Reddy S/O Late Muniswamappa

Sri M v Shivanna Vs Smt Vimala

Smt K T Ranjini Vs Mrs Amrjit Kaur

Sri. Theerthe Gowda N M Vs Sri. v. Kempanna

D Parameshwarappa Vs Susheelamma