Disposed

Smt. K Veena Nataraj v. Mr. K Shashikantha

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2023RFA/2021/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal, filed against an order refusing revocation of probate, was disposed of upon the parties reaching an amicable settlement. The appellant agreed to accept the probate issued to the respondent in exchange for a monetary settlement and withdrawal of related complaints.

What did the court decide?

The appeal stood disposed of in terms of the compromise petition; parties bear their own costs; and the registry is directed to refund the court fee to the appellant.

Smt. K Veena Nataraj Vs Mr. K Shashikantha — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA

¶6

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.2021/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. K.VEENA NATARAJ, W/O MR. NATARAJ M.R., AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, #562, SRI. SRINIVASA NILAYA, 2^ND CROSS, MUTHYALANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 054.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

[BY SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE]

¶11

AND:

¶12

MR. SHASHIKANTHA, S/O S.V.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.335, SRI GURU HARIHARA NILAYA, 2^ND STAGE, 5^TH MAIN, 9^TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

[BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE C/R IN (CP 1512/2019)]

¶15

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2019 PASSED ON A I.A.NO.2 IN P AND SC NO.153/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC.

¶16

¶17

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.01.2019 passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in P & SC No.153/2018 by XIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-18).

¶20

Appellant herein had filed an application seeking revocation of the Probate Letter issued by the Trial Court in P & SC No.412/2017. The appellant is respondent’s sister. Parties have filed a Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.

¶21

Heard Mr. Anoop Haranahalli, learned advocate for the appellant and Smt. G. Pushpalatha, learned advocate for the respondent.

¶22

Smt. K. Veena Nataraj, appellant and Sri. Shashikantha, respondent are present in Court and they are identified by their respective advocates.

¶23

Learned advocates on both sides jointly submit that during the pendency of the appeal, parties have amicably resolved the dispute. The compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 89 of CPC duly signed by the appellant, respondent

¶24

¶25

and their respective advocates has been filed. Appellant has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.3.50 Lakhs by way of three demand drafts i) D.D. bearing No.185019 dated 04.01.2023 for Rs.69,731/-; ii) D.D. bearing No.179541 dated 19.11.2022 for Rs.60,269/- and iii) D.D. bearing No.178943 dated 02.11.2022 for Rs.2,20,000/- in her favour as full and final settlement of her claim. Parties agree that they have understood the terms of the compromise. They pray that this appeal be disposed of in terms of settlement stated in the compromise petition.

¶26

The terms of compromise read as follows:

¶27

"MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER

¶28

ORDER XXIII RULE 3 R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

¶29

1. At the outset it is submitted that the parties shall be referred to in the present Compromise Petition by their ranks in the Regular First Appeal for the purpose of clear understanding of the summary description of the past and the present legal proceedings culminating in the Compromise Petition is narrated in short.

¶30

2. The Appellant had filed the above R.F.A. challenging the probate of the will duly issued by XIX Additional City Civil &Sessions Judge (CCH No.18), Bangalore in P &SC 412 of 2017 dated 29th November 2017as contemplated under Section 289 of the Schedule VI of the Indian Succession Act 1925 issued in favour of the Respondent.

¶31

3. The Mother of the Appellant and Respondent Smt. Late R. Suvarna was a Government School Teacher and she was a pensioner. Her pension used to get credited in Account No.54021765613 of State Bank of Mysore, Rajajinagar 1st Block, Bangalore-560010 (After Amalgamation i.e., from 1st April 2017 it is called as State Bank of India). The amount credited in the Pension Account as on 25.09.2022 is Rs.2,78,923 (Two lakhs Seventy Eight thousand Nine Hundred and twenty three Rupees only). During her service she had purchased the site measuring 30 x 40 bearing No.335 situated at 5^th Main, 9thBlock, Nagarabhavi II Stage,

¶32

¶33

Bangalore – 560072, East by Site No.303, West by Road, North by Site No.334 and South by site No.336 in the year 1988 for valuable consideration (more fully described here under and hereinafter referred to as the “Schedule Property”). On 16.08.2012 Smt. R. Suvarna had executed a Will in favour of the Respondent. Smt. R. Suvarna passed away on 14.07.2014.

¶34

4. The Appellant herein after the death of Smt. R. Suvarna filed as it numbered as O.S.3528/2015 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore (CCHNo.3) on 16.04.2015 against the Respondent and other two sisters namely Smt. K. Poornima and Smt. K. Jyothi seeking for the relief of ¼ share in the schedule property and sought for partition and separate possession which was unconditionally withdrawn by the appellant and hence was subsequently dismissed on 22.07.2016.

¶35

5. The Respondent filed P & SC No.412/2017 on 31.10.2017before the XIX Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore seeking issuance of probate contending that late Smt. R. Suvarna has executed a Holograph Will and Testament dated 16.08.2012. The Appellant was not made as a party to the said proceedings. The City Civil Court by its order dated 29.11.2017 allowed P & SC No.412/2017 and Probate was issued on 06.12.2017.

¶36

6. The Appellant aggrieved by the issuance of the probate in favour of the Respondent filed a petition numbered as P & S.C. No.153/2018 before the XIX Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore (CCH18) under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 for Revocation of the probate granted in favour of the Respondent questioning the validity of the will dated 16.08.2012. The Respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule11(a) & (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 sought for rejection of the Petition P & SC No.153/2018 which came to be allowed on 07.01.2019 for want of cause of action and hit by Doctrine of Estoppel. The Appellant aggrieved by the Judgement dated 07.01.2019 passed in P & SC No.153/2018 has preferred the above Appeal.

¶37

7. The parties to the above Appeal, during the pendency of the above Appeal, have reached amicable settlement of all claims and disputes inter-se.

¶38

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

¶39

8. The Appellant though sought for 1/4^th share in the schedule property, in view of the health issues of the Respondent’s wife and upon the advice of friends and wellwishers, the Appellant has agreed to withdraw the Appeal and not to pursue the above Appeal and accepts the probate certificate issued by the XIX the Additional City Civil Court Bangalore in favour of the Respondent in P & SC 412/2017.

¶40

¶41

9. The Respondent, in view of the withdrawal of the Appeal by the appellant to maintain cordial relationship and to meet legal expenses of the Appellant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) which includes the pension amount withstanding in the name of Late Smt. R. Suvarna. The Respondent is furnishing here with the following Demand Drafts drawn on Karnataka Bank- City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the Appellant Smt. K. Veena Nataraj.

¶42

Date	D.D.No.	Amount
02.11.2022	178943	Rs.2,20,000/-
19.11.2022	179541	Rs.60,269/-
04.01.2023	185019	Rs.69.731/-

¶43

10. The Appellant agrees to withdraw all complaints filed before the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and shall undertaken to precipitate any proceedings before any forum against the Respondent pertaining to the Suit Schedule Property or any other assets of late Smt. R Suvarna.

¶44

11. The Appellant in view of receipt of the aforesaid amount, has no objection for the transfer of the pension amount in favour of the Respondent which is withstanding in the name of Smt. R Suvarna in State Bank of Mysore (Now State Bank of India) PB NO, 1027, #46/6, 14th Cross, 12 Main, 1st Block, Rajajinagara, Bangalore- 560010, bearing account number A/c No 54021765613. The Appellant has already handed over requisite documents as requested and is willing to provide any further cooperation including her personal appearance if required at the bank to assist the transfer of the outstanding amount in the pension account in favour of the Respondent.

¶45

12. The Appellant hereinafter agrees, confirms that she has no claims, entitlements, interests and rights over the schedule property. In view of this compromise this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to refund the court fee in favour of the Appellant.

¶46

SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶47

All that piece and parcel of the “Sri Guru Hari Hara Nilaya” site bearing No.335, 5^th Main, Block No.9 in Nagarabhavi II Stage Extension, Bengaluru-560072 measuring East to West 12.20 meters (40feet) and North to South 9.10 meters (30 feet) together with all rights, appurtenance what so ever whether underneath or above the surface bounded by:

¶48

East by: Site No.303, West by: Road, North by: Site.No.334, South by:Site.No.336”

¶49

¶50

In our opinion, compromise arrived at between the parties

¶51

is lawful and accepted. Hence, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) Appeal stands disposed of in terms of compromise

¶54

petition;

¶55

ii) Parties shall bear their own costs; and

¶56

iii) Registry shall refund the court fee in accordance with law.

¶57

In view of disposal of this appeal, all pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are stand disposed of .

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

Psg*

Smt. K Veena Nataraj v. Mr. K Shashikantha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K Veena Nataraj v. Mr. K Shashikantha

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/S R S Production Vs Sri B v Dayanand

Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewage Board Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sathi Menon Vs M/S Maba Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd.

M R Seetharam Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co. Limited

Sri B Jayakumar Vs Sri N K Srinath

Padmanabha Shetty Vs Smt Sulochanamma