Partly allowed

Sri Manjegowda v. Sri Eregowda

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2023RSA/4/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two regular second appeals regarding land ownership disputes were consolidated. The court held that a joint compromise petition executed by the parties resolved the matter. The appeals against one respondent were dismissed as not pressed. The court permitted a clerical correction to the appellant's name and decreed in terms of the compromise.

What did the court decide?

A decree was drawn in terms of the compromise petition acknowledging absolute ownership of Schedule A and Schedule B properties by the appellant and Respondent No. 1 respectively, with subsequent muta

Sri Manjegowda Vs Sri Eregowda — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24926 RSA No. 4 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 2 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.4 OF 2015 (DEC/INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2 OF 2014(DEC/INJ)

¶8

IN R.S.A.NO.4/2015

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI MANJEGOWDA S/O KENCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A APPENAHALLI VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI K N.NITISH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI EREGOWDA S/O SANNABOREGOWDA, R/AT APPENAHALLI VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.

¶16

SRI PAPEGOWDA, S/O LATE SANNABOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT APPENAHALLI VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:24926 RSA No. 4 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 2 of 2014

¶19

HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.

¶20

SRI NANJUNDEGOWDA, S/O LATE SANNABOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT APPENAHALLI VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI H.N.M PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.23, APPEAL AGAINST R2 AND R3 IS DISMISSED)

¶23

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD 21.10.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.284/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 27.9.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.75/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA.

¶24

IN R.S.A.2/2014

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SRI MANJEGOWDA S/O KENCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A APPENAHALLI VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.

¶27

…APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

SRI EREGOWDA S/O SANNABOREGOWDA,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:24926 RSA No. 4 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 2 of 2014

¶33

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A APPENAHALLI VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.

¶34

SRI RAJAPPA CPI, MAJOR, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN, R/O POLICE COLONY, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.

¶35

SRI D P VENKATESH TAHASILDAR, CHANANRAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI H.N.M.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.2023, APPEAL GAINST R2 TO R3 IS DISMISSED)

¶38

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 27.9.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.11/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 5.3.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.192/05 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA.

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:24926 RSA No. 4 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 2 of 2014

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.4/2015

¶44

has filed a memo seeking for deletion of respondent Nos.2 and 3 stating that no relief has been sought against them. The said memo is taken on record. The appeal against respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dismissed as not pressed.

¶45

Learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.2/2015 has also filed a memo seeking deletion of respondent Nos.2 and 3 stating that no relief has been sought against them. The said memo is taken on record. The appeal against respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dismissed as not pressed.

¶46

Joint compromise petition has been filed in RSA No.4/2015 and RSA No.2/2015. The appellant in both the matters is one Manjegowda S/o Kenchegowda. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his correct name is Manjegowda S/o Kenchegowda. But, his father name is not correctly shown in RSA No.4/2015. The respondent in both the appeals is one Eregowda S/o Sannaboregowda. Both appellant and respondent No.1 are present and they submit that they have voluntarily affixed their signatures on the compromise

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:24926 RSA No. 4 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 2 of 2014

¶49

petition. The appellant and respondent No.1 are identified by their respective counsels.

¶50

4. The terms of compromise petition contending in

¶51

para 3 reads as under:

¶52

“3. Both the above appeals have been clubbed and during the pendency of the above appeals, the lands in question have been surveyed. Upon survey, the appellant and the 1^st respondent have resolved their dispute and accordingly have entered into compromise as per the terms and conditions stated herein: -

¶53

a) The 1^st Respondent concedes and acknowledges that Appellant Sri Manjegowda is absolute owner in possession of the Schedule A property. The 1^st respondent or anybody claiming through or under him shall have no rights whatsoever over Schedule A Property and same shall be enjoyed by the appellant without any interference by the respondent No.1. Survey sketch of land bearing Sy.No.83/2 and the RTC standing in the name of the appellant is enclosed herewith as Document No.1 & 2. Same shall form part and parcel of the this compromise petition.

¶54

b) Land in Sy.No.83/1 originally measured 4 acres 38 guntas including 30 guntas karab. On survey, it

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:24926 RSA No. 4 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 2 of 2014

¶56

¶57

has been phoded as Sy.No.83/1, 83/4 and 83/5. Though the 1^st Respondent filed suit concerning 1 acre 20 Guntas of land, it is matter of record that 7¾ guntas of land have been acquired for public purpose. As such, the land in possession and enjoyment of the 1^st respondent is 1 acre 12 ¼ guntas only. The said land has been phoded as Sy.No.83/4 and 83/5 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta and 11 ¼ guntas respectively. The appellant concedes and acknowledges that Respondent No.1 Eregowda is absolute owner in possession of the Schedule B property. The Appellant or anybody claiming through or under him shall have no rights whatsoever over Schedule B Property and same shall be enjoyed by the 1^st Respondent without any interference by the Appellant. Copy of the survey sketch is at Document No.3. The revenue entries of the said land have been got mutated in the name the son of the 1^st respondent. Copy of the RTC is at Document No.4 and 5 and the same shall form part and parcel of this compromise petition.

¶58

c) The present compromise petition shall bind all the person claiming under or through the appellant and 1^st respondent and there shall not be any interference to the possession of the properties belonging to respective parties.

¶59

d) The present compromise petition has been entered into on the free will and the volition of the parties herein.”

¶60

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:24926 RSA No. 4 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 2 of 2014

¶61

The said compromise petition is enclosed with

¶62

sketch of Sy.No.83, RTC of Sy.No.83/2, another sketch of Sy.No.83/1 and RTC of Sy.No.83/4 and 83/5.

¶63

Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to carry out the amendment to the effect that the correction of father name of the appellant in RSA No.4/2015 and also regarding the dismissal of the appeal against respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶64

Draw decree in terms of compromise petition.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

Sri Manjegowda v. Sri Eregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjegowda v. Sri Eregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Dulcina Vaz Vs Mr Robert Pinto

Sri Narayanaswamy S/O Mallarahalli Hanumappa Vs Jayamma W/O Late Thippaiah

Chikkananjanaika Vs C M Ramu

Rangaswamy Vs Jayalakshmi @ Jayalakshmamma

Shamachari Vs Puttamma

The Commissioner Vs the Commissioner