Disposed

Smt. Kallamma v. Sri Dodda Erappa

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2023RSA/1070/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a regular second appeal arising from a partition suit, condoned a delay in filing an application for setting aside abatement. The court appointed legal representatives of a deceased respondent, permitted amendment of the plaint schedule, accepted a compromise petition, and directed the registry to draw a decree based on the compromise. The decision was essentially p

What did the court decide?

Abatement set aside; legal representatives allowed; amendment of plaint schedule allowed; compromise petition allowed; decree drawn in terms of compromise.

Smt. Kallamma Vs Sri Dodda Erappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:29371 RSA No. 1070 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1070 OF 2018 (PAR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. KALLAMMA D/O LATE EARAPPA, W/O GULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT HOGARI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 138.

¶8

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.VIJAY KUMAR BHAT .,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI DODDA ERAPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶12

1(a) SMT.MUNIYAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY, D/O LATE DODDA ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOGARI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 138.

¶13

1(b) SMT. KALAVATHI W/O RAMESH, D/O LATE DODDA ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANATHA VILLAGE,

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:29371 RSA No. 1070 of 2018

¶15

KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563138.

¶16

SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶17

SMT. KALLAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKA ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶18

SMT. NAGAMMA D/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶19

SMT. MUNIKALLAMMA D/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶20

REPSONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT HOGARI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 138.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR.N.SANGALLI FOR RESPONDENT No.1(A-B), 2, 4 AND 5 .,ADVOCATE AND

¶23

SRI.C.S.VISWESWARAIAH FOR RESPONDENT No.3)

¶24

THIS R.S.A IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 12.03.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.106/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.08.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.160/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KOLAR.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:29371 RSA No. 1070 of 2018

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Heard on IA No.1/2023 filed by the learned counsel for appellant where there is a delay of 289 days in filing legal representatives’ application and the counsel also filed IA No.2/2023 for setting aside the abatement order and bringing legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on record as per IA No.3/2023.

¶30

The legal representatives themselves have filed these applications and the counsel for the appellant has no objection to allow those applications. For the reasons stated in the applications as well as in the affidavits, the delay of 289 days in filing the legal representative application is condoned and abatement is set-aside.

¶31

The appellant counsel is directed to amend the cause title and to file amended cause title.

¶32

The amendment is carried out by the counsel for appellant and he has filed amended cause title.

¶33

The counsel for appellant has also filed IA No.4/2023 for amendment of the plaint wherein in the schedule

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:29371 RSA No. 1070 of 2018

¶35

the survey number is mentioned as Sy.No.20/1A and subsequent to the survey and phodi work, the survey number has been numbered as Sy.No.20/3.

¶36

The counsel for the respondents has not disputed the submission of the appellant’s counsel and also averments made in the application. Hence, IA No.4/2023 filed by the counsel for the appellant is allowed.

¶37

The counsel for appellant is permitted to carry out

¶38

the amendment to the schedule as Sy.No.20/3 instead of Sy.No.20/1A in the plaint.

¶39

The parties i.e., appellant, respondent No.1, legal representatives of respondent Nos.1 i.e., 1(A) and 1(B) and also respondent Nos.2,3 and 5 are present, the respective counsels are also present and they identified the appellant as well as the respondents before this Court.

¶40

In terms of the compromise, the parties got allotted the suit schedule properties as schedule ‘A’ to schedule ‘G’. The parties have also understood the terms of the compromise. Hence, the compromise is accepted and accordingly compromise petition filed under Order 22 Rule 3 is allowed.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:29371 RSA No. 1070 of 2018

¶43

The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms

¶44

of the compromise entered between the parties.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Smt. Kallamma v. Sri Dodda Erappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kallamma v. Sri Dodda Erappa

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 B.S. Kendagannappa Vs Sri B.S. Devaraju

B G Basavegowda Vs Dharma Nayaka

K.A Venkatesha Babu Vs Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Sarojamma Vs Sri Hanumanthu

Sri T Srinivas Vs Sri T Venkataram

Sri. K. P. Sachin Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka