Disposed

Sri.Ramu @ Ramappa v. Sri.v.Raghavendra

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023RFA/278/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a suit dismissal was disposed of by the Karnataka High Court accepting a valid compromise petition. The court decreed the suit based on the compromise, allotting specific property items to the appellants and directing the registry to draw up the decree accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of by decreeing the suit in terms of the compromise petition, allotting specific property items to appellants and refunding court fees to the appellant.

Sri.Ramu @ Ramappa Vs Sri.v.Raghavendra — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.RAMU @ RAMAPPA, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶9

SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O LATE RAMU @ RAMAPPA, AGE ABOUT 74 YEARS.

¶10

SMT. JAYAMMA, D/O LATE RAMU @ RAMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶11

SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY, S/O LATE RAMU @ RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. R. LOKESH, S/O LATE RAMU @ RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶14

SRI. R. VENKATESH, S/O LATE RAMU @ RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶15

SMT. NAGAVENI, D/O LATE RAMU @ RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. NO.1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.10, OLD NO.39, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, NEAR A.M.C HOSTEL, K.G. HALLI,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶18

BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶19

SRI. PILLAPPA @ MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA, GRAND S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.12, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶20

SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶21

SRI. SRINIVASA, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶22

SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE L. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶23

SRI. MANJU @ MANJUNATH, S/O LATE L. SRINIVAS, AGED BAOUT 45 YEARS.

¶24

SRI. S. VENKATESH, S/O LATE L. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶25

SRI. VAJRA, S/O LATE L. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶26

NO.9 TO 12 ARE R/AT NO.37, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, LAXMAIAH LAYOUT, K.G. HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶28

SMT. HEMAVATHI K., W/O LATE KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶29

NO.1 AND2, 4 TO 13 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY (APPELLANT NO.3) S/O LATE RAMU @ RAMAPPA.

¶30

…APPELLANTS

¶31

(BY SRI. H.R. ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

SRI. V.RAGHAVENDRA, S/O VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶34

SRI. VENUGOPAL, S/O BYRAPPA (ADOPTED SON OF BYAMMA), AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶35

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.43, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, NEAR SHAMPURA GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, BANGALORE.

¶36

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.19, 4^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶37

SRI. CHOWDAPPA, S/O LATE H. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.43, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, NEAR SHAMPURA GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶40

BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. H.S. RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶43

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.15666/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶44

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

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.01.2021 passed in O.S.No.15666/2006 by the XIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the appellants – plaintiffs against the respondents – defendants, for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶47

Appellants and respondents have filed Compromise Petition. Learned counsel for the appellants files a Memo along with the Sketch and submits that the Sketch, which is filed today also forms part of the Compromise Petition. The said Compromise petition reads as under:

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶50

"THE APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENT NO.3 FILES THE COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

¶51

The appellants and Respondents respectfully submit as follows;

¶52

1. The appellants and Respondent no.1 to 3 submits that the suit in O.S.No.15666/2006 is for a Declaration that Sri.Ramu @ Ramappa, the deceased 1^st plaintiff is the absolute owner of Schedule-B Property, for a declaration that the Schedule-A described in the compromise is a private passage meant for usage of the plaintiffs and for a permanent injunction. The plaint schedule properties in O.S.No.15666/2006 are described as the plaint A and B Schedule Property.

¶53

PLAINT A SCHEDULE IN O.S.NO.15666/2006

¶54

All that piece and parcel of Property bearing No.21, space of gramathana of Shampura Village, now assigned No.20 by the BMP, Shampura Village, bounded on the:- East by : Road, West by : Lakshmaiah’s Property, North by : Late Byamma’s property belonging to defendants and South by : Road measuring 31 ½ and 28, out of which 17x31 ½ belongs to the 1^st Plaintiff and the remaining 11 x 31 ½ is the passage

¶55

PLAINT B SCHEDULE IN O.S.NO.15666/2006

¶56

All that piece and parcel of the house property situated at Gramthana of Shampura Village, Kaval Byrasandra ward No.95, measuring East to west: 43 Feet and North to South: 17 Feet, bounded on the: East by: Road, West by :

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶59

Krishnappa’s House, North by : Common Passage and South by : Road.

¶60

2. The Appellants submit that against Judgement and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.15666/2006, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Hon’ble court.

¶61

3. The appellants and Respondents after prefering the above appeal at the instance of well wishers and elders both the parties agreed to settle the disputes pending before this Hon’ble court and same has been settled amicably and in the manner hereinafter indicated by confirming the ownership of the schedule B property in favour of appellants herein and also admits that the plaintiff No.1/the legal heirs being the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of B schedule property. For proper clarification and interpretation the parties to this suit have enclosed a separate sketch along with this compromises petition.

¶62

4. The Respondent No.1 and 2 submits that they are represented through their power of attorney holder/Respondent No.3 before this Hon’ble court and admit and confirm they have no right or claim on the property claimed by the Appellant and the sale deed executed by Respondent No.1 and 2 in favour of Respondent No.3 is not acted upon them and the same is in respect of property claimed by the appellants. As such the respondents confirm that the property claimed by the

¶63

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶64

Appellant belongs to them and they are in possession of the said Property as its absolute owners.

¶65

5. The appellants and respondents submit that this compromise is entered into by the parties on their own volition, without there being any coercion or force. The same will settle the disputes between the parties.

¶66

6. The Respondents submit that in the course of the Written Statement, it is admitted that the Deed of partition was executed amongst Muniyamma and his son Ramaiah and one Krishnamma Mastry, Veerappa and their children on the other side and in that partition items of property have been allotted to the parties referred to therein. The palupatti is marked as Ex.P7 along with palupatti, a sketch has been prepared. Copy of the sketch is also produced and annexed to this compromise.

¶67

7. Now both the parties submit in view of allotment of shares made under Ex.P7 and the sketch, the allotments are as hereunder.

¶68

8. The allotment is indicated more clearly in the sketch, which may kindly be read as part and parcel of this compromise petition. It may be mentioned that all the parties to this compromise have admitted that the portions indicated hereunder and the portions has been noted in the sketch be allotted to the respective parties mentioned therein.

¶69

9. The Respondents admits and confirm that the properties claimed by the appellant before the trial court

¶70

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶71

and before this Hon’ble court belong to the appellants/plaintiffs and they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and respondents have not acquired any right, title or possession on the property belongs to the appellants. Further the respondents towards litigations expenses agreed to receive a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- and received the said amount from the appellant in the following manner:

¶72

a. RS.5,00,000/- (RUPEES FIVE LAKHS ONLY) by way of Cheque bearing No. 010987, dated 11.11.2022, drawn on Union Bank, RT Nagar Branch, in favour of Respondent No.3

¶73

b. RS.12,00,000/(RUPEES TWELVE LAKHS ONLY) by way of Cheque bearing No. 010993, dated 08.11.2023 drawn on Union Bank, RT Nagar Branch, in favour of Respondent No.3

¶74

10. The respondent No. 3 admits and confirm that they have not entered into any agreement or contract based on their alleged sale deed nor raised any finance from the financial institution and property is not encumbered. In the event if any the respondents are held responsible for all cause and consequence and appellants are no way concern to the said charges

¶75

11. The appellants and respondent submit that the properties are allotted to the appellants with respective measurements and boundaries as shown in the

¶76

¶77

NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶78

Compromise Petition along with a sketch for more clarification and interpretation.

¶79

THE PROPERTIES ALLOTTED TO THE APPELLANTS UNDER THIS COMPROMSIE PETITION AS HEREUNDER:

¶80

1) Item No.1 allotted to Sreenivasamurthy.

¶81

2) Item No.2 allotted to Lokesh

¶82

3) Item No.3 allotted to Krishnappa

¶83

4) Item No.4 allotted to Pillappa @ Manjunath

¶84

5) Item No.5 allotted to Rathnamma

¶85

6) Item No.6 allotted to Hemavathi

¶86

12. The Appellants and Respondent admits and confirm that the following documents entered between the Appellant family members i.e., Panchayathi Palupatti dated 18.09.1989, Deed of Partition Dated: 25.04.2007, Partition deed dated 07.09.2016, Partition deed dated 25.08.2021

¶87

13. The Respondent No.3/Chowdappa admits and confirm that he has not acquired any right, title or possession over the property shown in the sale deed registered dated 23.08.2006 in respect of the property bearing Gramthana No.17, BBMP Khatha No.20, PID No. 95/43/20, situated at Shampura Gramthana, BBMP Ward No.32, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North measuring East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 30 feet which is a subject matter in original suit and further Respondent

¶88

10 -

¶89

NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶90

admit the property shown in the said sale deed belongs to the Appellants and they are in actual possession since beginning. The said facts may kindly be intimates to the Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to delete relevant entries.

¶91

14. The Respondent /Chowdappa admit and confirm that he has not entered into any Agreement or contract or executed any sale deed or any other documents in favour of third party nor obtained any loan from the financial institutions if so any is held responsible for all cause and consequences.

¶92

15. The Appellants and respondents submit that this compromise is entered into by the parties on their own volition, without there being any coercion or force. The same will settle the disputes between the parties.

¶93

WHEREFORE , appellants and respondent prays that this Hon’ble court to allow this compromise petition and order to Decree the suit in terms of compromise and to pass such other suitable orders as this Hon’ble court may deems fit under the circumstances in the interest of justice.

¶94

COMPROMISE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ITEM NO.1 ALLOTTED TO SREENIVASAMURTHY

¶95

All that piece and parcel of property bearing No.21 space of Gramathana of Shampura Village, now assigned No.20 by the BMP, Shampura Village, Kasaba Hobli, BBMP Ward No.32, Bangalore North Measuring East to

¶96

11 -

¶97

NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶98

west : 34 Feet and North to South: 30 feet, and bounded on ;

¶99

East by : Road, West by : Lokesh Property, North by : late Byamma’s Property belonging To Defendants South by : Road,

¶100

ITEM NO.2 ALLOTTED TO LOKESH

¶101

All that piece and parcel of property bearing No.21 space of Gramathana of Shampura Village Kasaba Hobli, BBMP Ward No.32, Bangalore North Measuring East to west : 17 +5 in total 535.5 sq Feet and North to South: 29+ 37 ½/2 feet, and bounded on ;

¶102

East by : Srinivasamurthy, West by : Krishnappa North by : late Byamma’s Property belonging To Defendants& Jayamma Property South by : Road

¶103

ITEM NO.3 ALLOTTED TO KRISHNAPPA

¶104

All that piece and parcel of property bearing No.21 space of Gramathana of Shampura Village, Kasaba Hobli, BBMP Ward No.32, Bangalore North Measuring East to west : 15 Feet and North to South: 35 feet, and bounded on;

¶105

East by : Lokesh, West by : Pillappa @manjunath

¶106

12 -

¶107

NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶108

North by : Jayamma’s Property,

¶109

South by : Common Passage and Road,

¶110

ITEM NO.4 ALLOTTED TO PILLAPPA @ MANJUNATH

¶111

¶112

East by : Krishnappa, West by : Rathnamma North by : Jayamma’s Proeprty South by : Common Passage

¶113

ITEM NO.5 ALLOTTED TO RATHNAMMA

¶114

¶115

East by : Property of Pillappa, West by : Property of Hemavathi North by : Jayamma’s Property, South by : Common Passage,

¶116

ITEM NO.6 ALLOTTED TO HEMAVATHI

¶117

All that piece and parcel of property bearing No.21 space of Gramathana of Shampura Village, Kasaba Hobli, BBMP Ward No.32, Bangalore North Measuring East to

¶118

13 -

¶119

NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶120

West : 16 Feet and North to South: 39 feet, and bounded on;

¶121

East by	:	Rathnamma’s Property and Common Passage,
West by	:	Private property
North by	:	Jayamma’s Property,
South by	:	Sonnappa’s Property,

¶122

The said compromise petition has been duly signed

¶123

by the appellants as well as their counsel and by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the Power of Attorney Holder of respondent No.3 and also their counsel.

¶124

Appellants and respondents are physically present before the Court and they admit that they have executed the Compromise Petition voluntarily. All parties have accepted the terms and conditions of the Compromise Petition and they are identified by their respective counsel.

¶125

Being satisfied with the terms and conditions contained in the Compromise Petition, the appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Compromise Petition by modifying the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and substituting the same with the terms and conditions of the

¶126

14 -

¶127

NC: 2023:KHC:39843 RFA No. 278 of 2021

¶128

said Compromise Petition. The Sketch annexed to the Memo is directed to be treated as part and parcel of the Compromise Decree. Registry is directed to draw up decree accordingly.

¶129

Registry is directed to refund 100% Court fee (entire court fee) paid by the appellant on the memorandum of appeal as per amendment to Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2020, in accordance with law.

¶130

Sd/JUDGE

¶131

NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:SNN

Sri.Ramu @ Ramappa v. Sri.v.Raghavendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Ramu @ Ramappa v. Sri.v.Raghavendra

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

Mr Mohammed Rizwan Vs Mr Champakadhama

Smt Rajkumari Bai Vs Smt K Kalavathi

Sri R Anandan Vs Smt Muniyamma

Rajendran. N Vs Smt. Gowramma

Smt N Shubha Vs Sri B G Narayana Reddy

Dinesh Kumar Bafna Vs Sharada Bai