Dismissed

Rangaiah Since Dead by His Lr'S v. K v Galappa Since Dead by His Lr'S

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2023RSA/569/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patellants filed a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC challenging the dismissal of their earlier appeal regarding a suit property dispute. During pendency, the parties reached a settlement confirmed the sale and subsequent transfer of the property to respondent no.4, with mutual financial compensation agreed upon by appellants. The High Court accepted the compromise and dismissed the appeal, a

What did the court decide?

The compromise petition is accepted, the appeal is dismissed, and the decree below is affirmed by incorporating the terms of the compromise.

Rangaiah Since Dead by His Lr'S Vs K v Galappa Since Dead by His… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - RSA No. 569 of 2006

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.569 OF 2006 (DEC/INJ)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RANGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶7

1(a) SMT DHANALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O RANGAIAH,

¶8

SINCE DEAD

¶9

1(b) SRI. R.RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O RANGAIAH

¶10

1(c) SMT. R. MUNILAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, D/O RANGAIAH

¶11

1(d) SMT. GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O RANGAIAH

¶12

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

1(e) SRI. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O RANGAIAH

¶14

1(f) SMT. R. MALATHI, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O RANGAIAH

¶15

ALL ARE R/A NO.187, 1^ST MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. K.K. THAYAMMA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

K V GALAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶20

¶21

RSA No. 569 of 2006

¶22

1(a) SMT. MUNILAKSHMI, W/O LATE GALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶23

1(b) ANJALI, D/O LATE GALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶24

1(c) AMBIKA, D/O LATE GALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶25

1(d) ASHWINI, AGED 19 YEARS D/O LATE GALAPPA

¶26

1(a) TO 1(d) ARE R/AT KUMBALGODU VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶27

SMT. BHAGYAMMA, SINCE, DEAD, BY HER LRs

¶28

2(a) LAKSHMAMMA @ LAKSHMI, W/O LATE GALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A KUMBALGODU, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶29

2(b) KRISHNAMURTHY @ KITTY, S/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A KOREKALLU ANJANEYA, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶30

2(c) SAROJA D/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A KUMBALAGODU, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560 060.

¶31

2(d) RANGASWAMY, S/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A KUMBALAGODU, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560 060.

¶32

¶33

RSA No. 569 of 2006

¶34

2(e) SUMITRA, D/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A KUMBALAGODU, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560 060.

¶35

2(f) SHOBHA, D/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A KUMBALAGODU, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560 060.

¶36

2(g) PUSHPA, D/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A KUMBALAGODU, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560 060.

¶37

SMT. CHIKKATHIMAKKA W/O PURUSHOTHAMA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/A KAREKALLU ANJANEYA TEMPLE, BANGALORE 560 018.

¶38

SRI. C. BHASKARAN, S/O LATE SRI. P.K.PANICKER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A NO.153, 5^TH CROSS, SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGAR 1^ST BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011. REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SRI. C.PRAMOD.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

[BY SMT. ANAGHA J. PRAKASH & SMT. AISHWARYA PRASAD, ADVOCATES FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1(a) TO R1(d), R2(a) & R2(b) AND R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DATED 02.12.2019; NOTICE TO R2(f) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DATED 17.03.2015; NOTICE TO R2 (c), R2 (d) & R2(g) HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 12.03.2015; NOTICE TO R2(e) HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 15.12.2016] SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 15.12.2016]

¶41

THE RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 12.01.2006, PASSED IN R.A.NO.52/1997 ON THE

¶42

¶43

RSA No. 569 of 2006

¶44

FILE OF THE FAST TRACK-I, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.01.1997 PASSED IN O.S.34/1985, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SECOND MUNSIFF, BANGALORE RURAL.

¶45

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

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

Challenging impugned judgment and decree dated 12.01.2006 passed in R.A.no.52/1997 by Fast Track-I, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and judgment and decree dated 21.01.1997 passed in O.S.no.34/1985 by Principal Second Munsiff, Bangalore, this appeal is filed by appellants - plaintiffs.

¶48

Learned counsel for parties submitted that during pendency of above appeal parties have entered into compromise and a Compromise Petition containing terms of settlement is filed today and pray for acceptance of same and disposal of appeal in terms thereof.

¶49

It is submitted that respondent no.1 is vendor of respondents no.2 and 3 and legal representatives of said respondents no.2 and respondent no.3 have sold suit property in favour of respondent no.4. It is further submitted that

¶50

¶51

RSA No. 569 of 2006

¶52

respondent no.4 executed General Power of Attorney (GPA) to one Sri C. Pramod. Likewise, appellant no.1(c) executed General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of her daughter Smt. Anuradha H. Thus, Appellants and respondents and/or their GPA holders are present before Court today identified by their respective counsel.

¶53

I have perused terms of compromise which are as

¶54

under:

¶55

"2 Appellants 1(b) to 1(f) confirm that there was a valid sale deed in respect of suit schedule property namely, Sy.No.119/8, Kumbalgodu Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore Sourt Taluk, totally measuring 1 acre and 1 gunta, executed by deceased 1^st respondent in favour of deceased 2^nd respondent and the 3^rd respondent under the sale deed dated 18.10.1984, registered as Document No.4587 of 8485 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk and vacant possession of the same was also delivered to them. The said property is also morefully described in the schedule below.

¶56

3. Parties also confirm that pursuant to the said sale, mutation entries were made in the name of the deceased 2^nd respondent and 3rd respondent.

¶57

4. Appellants 1(b) to 1(f) also confirm that the said sale took place at the instance of the deceased 1st appellant, Rangaish.

¶58

¶59

RSA No. 569 of 2006

¶60

5. Appellants 1(b) to 1(f) confirm that having regard to the fact that the sale of the schedule property took place at the instance of the deceased 1^st appellant, the said sale is fully binding on the 1st appellant and he had no right to seek reconveyance of the said property to him, as sought for in the suit O.S.no.34/1985.

¶61

6. Parties also confirm that during the pendency of the appeal, the schedule property has been duly conveyed to the 4^th respondent by way of absolute sale by Smt.Chikkathimmakka, the 3^rd respondent in the above appeal and also here children, and heirs of Late Bhagyamma, the deceased respondent no.2, under registered sale deed dated 11.06.2014 registered as Document No.JPN-1-050262014-15. The 4^th respondent was also placed in possession of the schedule property and presentaly he is in possession of the schedule property as absolute owner thereof.

¶62

7. However, at the request of Appellants 1(b) to 1(f), on humanitarian grounds, the 4^th respondent has paid to each of them, various sums of money as detailed hereunder:

¶63

Rs.9,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 21.03.2023 bearing no.819613 drawn on IOB Bank, in favour of Sri R.Ramamurthy, Appellant no.1(b).

¶64

Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 21.03.2023 bearing no.819616 drawn on IOB Bank, in favour of Smt. Munilakshmamma @ Munilaksmi R., Appellant no.1(c).

¶65

¶66

RSA No. 569 of 2006

¶67

Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 21.03.2023 bearing no.819612 drawn on IOB Bank, in favour of Smt. Gowramma, Appellant no.1(d).

¶68

Rs.20,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 21.03.2023 bearing no.819615 drawn on IOB Bank, in favour of Sri Muniraj, Appellant no.1(e).

¶69

Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 21.03.2023 bearing no.819614 drawn on IOB Bank, in favour of Smt. R. Malathi, Appellant no.1(f)..

¶70

8. In view of the same, parties submit that the above second appeal may be dismissed, confirming the judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.no.34/1985 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Judge, Bangalore Rural and confirmed in R.A.no.52/1997, on the file of the Fast Track-I, Bangalore Rural."

¶71

On interaction with parties, they have stated that

¶72

terms of compromise have been explained to them and after understanding them, they have signed compromise petition out of their own free will, without there being any threat, coercion or inducement from any one.

¶73

I have perused terms of compromise. They are lawful and in best interest of parties.

¶74

Being satisfied with same, compromise petition is accepted. In terms thereof, appeal is dismissed by affirming judgment and decree dated 12.01.2006 passed in

¶75

¶76

RSA No. 569 of 2006

¶77

R.A.no.52/1997 by Fast Track-I, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and judgment and decree dated 21.01.1997 passed

¶78

in O.S.no.34/1985 by Principal Second Munsiff, Bangalore.

¶79

Registry is directed to draw decree incorporating terms of

¶80

compromise.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

GRD

Rangaiah Since Dead by His Lr'S v. K v Galappa Since Dead by His Lr'S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangaiah Since Dead by His Lr'S v. K v Galappa Since Dead by His Lr'S

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.D.G.Siddanagowda Vs Pragati Krishna Gramin Bank

S. P. Kumar Vs Chief Secretary

Sri H N Sathyanarayana Rao I.P.S.(Retd) Vs State of Karnataka

Latha C Vs City Muncipal Council

Bhaktha Kumar Shetty Vs the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Smt Shylashree Vs Karnataka Housing Board