Disposed

Smt. Prabhavathi. N D/O Late Smt.Sheshagiriyamma v. Smt. P.M. Basamma W/O Late Eshwaraiah

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024MSA/100040/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by defendants against appellate remand in a specific performance suit over a 1999 sale agreement. Parties filed a compromise petition: respondent No.1 gave up her claims under the sale agreement for Rs.30 lakhs paid by respondent No.2. The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement and directed a decree accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in terms of compromise; parties bound by settlement; respondent No.2 declared owner; decree to be drawn.

Smt. Prabhavathi. N D/O Late Smt.Sheshagiriyamma Vs… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12722 MSA No. 100040 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 100040 OF 2018

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT. PRABHAVATHI. N

¶6

D/O. LATE SMT. SHESHAGIRIYAMMA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

¶7

1(A). SHRI. P.B. GIREESH CHAND S/O. LATE TIPPESWAMY, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DANAYAKANAKERE VILLAGE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BELLARY. NOW VIJAYANAGARA -583222.

¶8

SHRI.N. RAJESHWAR RAO S/O. LATE VENKATARATHNAM, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶9

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶10

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

2(A). SMT. NADELLA LAKSHMI W/O. LATE NADELLA REJESWARA RAO, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:# 501, N.J. NAIDU COMPLEX, 3^RD PHASE, KPHB COLONY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERBAD – 500 072.

¶12

2 (B). SMT. NADELLA KISHORE S/O. LATE NADELLA RAJESWRA RAO, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST & BUSINESS, R/O: #501, N.J. NAIDU COMPLEX, 3^RD PHASE, KPHB COLONY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERBAD – 500 072.

¶13

2(C). SMT. KONASANI SHIRISHA D/O. LATE NADELLA RAJESWARA RAO, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:# 501, N.J. NAIDU COMPLEX, 3^RD PHASE, KPHB COLONY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERBAD – 500 072.

¶14

- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12722 MSA No. 100040 of 2018

¶15

APPELLANTS NO.2(A) TO 2(C) ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHRI. P.B. GIREESH CHAND S/O. LATE TIPPESWAMY, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DANAYAKANAKERE VILLAGE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BELLARY, NOW VIJAYANAGARA – 583 222 THE APPELLANT NO.1 1(A) HEREIN

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SMT. P.M. BASAMMA W/O. LATE ESHWARAIAH, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: ANEKALLU VILLAGE, TQ: H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI, NOW VIJAYANAGARA.

¶20

SHRI. J.N. PARASHURAM S/O. LATE J.N. VENKOBANNA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: WARD NO.33, MYASAKERI, HOSAPETE POST & TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. LAXMAN M. KURAHATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS MSA FILED U/SEC.43 RULE 1 (U) OF CPC., PRAYED THAT THE HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S. NO.104/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., H.B.HALLI AND R.A. NO.31/2016, ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JFMC., HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI AND ALLOW THE APPEAL THEREBY SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN R.A. NO.31/2016 DATED 20.02.2018 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE O.S. NO.104/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., H.B.HALLI.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12722 MSA No. 100040 of 2018

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenging the judgment and decree passed in RA No.31/2016 dated 20.02.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli and consequentially dismiss the O.S.No.104/2011 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli

¶29

Respondent No.1 has filed suit against appellants seeking relief of specific performance of sale agreement dated 15.07.1999. The said suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 15.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.104/2011. The said decree passed by the trial Court has been challenged by respondent No.1 in RA No.31/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli. The said appeal came to be allowed and the Appellate Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The said order of remand has been challenged by defendants in this appeal.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12722 MSA No. 100040 of 2018

¶31

A compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 1

¶32

of CPC is filed and it is signed by appellant No.1(A), appellant No.2 (A to C), respondent No.1, respondent No.2 and their respective counsels. The terms of compromise petition are stated in para No.7 of compromise petition

¶33

which reads thus

¶34

“7. It is submitted that, now at intervention of the elders and well-wishers of the parties have agreed to resolved the dispute amongst themselves by way of an amicable settlement and as such the terms settlement are reduced in writing as hereunder:

¶35

a) It is submitted that the deceased Appellant No.1 had alienated the suit property, after getting the Registered General Power of Attorney dated 17.03.2015 registered as Doct.No.HBH-4- 00033/2014-15 in favour of the brother of the Respondent No.2 namely Sri.J.N.Ganesh under a registered sale deed dated 19.10.2017 under document No.HBH-102696/2017-18. Pursuant to the Sale Deed executed by Appellant No.1 the brother of Respondent No.2 namely Sri.J.N.Ganesh became the absolute owner of the Suit Property. However, since the said property was acquired by the brother of Respondent No.2 from the income of the joint family properties of Respondent No.2 and his family, there was a partition between Respondent No.2, his brother and sister. Under the registered Partition Deed, dated: 17.06.2022

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12722 MSA No. 100040 of 2018

¶37

bearing Document No.HSP-1-01399-2022-23, the suit property has fallen to the exclusive share Respondent No.2. It is now agreed by all the parties that the sale deed executed by Appellant No.1 in favour of Sri. J.N. Ganesh under a Registered Sale Deed dated 19.10.2017 is legal and binding on all the parties and the parties further agree that, under the partition amongst the family members of Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.2 has acquired valid and exclusive rights over the Suit Property.

¶38

b) The Respondent No.1 further agrees that under the aforesaid sale deed, all the rights, title and interests over the suit property had been legally alienated in favour of the brother of Respondent No.2 and under the partition, the Respondent No.2 has acquired all rights, title and interest over the suit property, accordingly the Respondent No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of suit property.

¶39

c) The Respondent No.1 hereby gives up all her rights, title and interests, if any, over the suit property under the Agreement of Sale dated 15/07/1999 and the Respondent No.1 shall have no claim whatsoever under the said agreement.

¶40

d) In lieu of Respondent No.1 relinquishing all her rights under the said Agreement of Sale dated 15/07/1999, the Respondent No.2 has paid to the Respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.30,00,000/(Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) in the following manner:

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12722 MSA No. 100040 of 2018

¶42

i. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) has been paid by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1 by way of cash at the time of settlement talks in the presence of elders and well-wishers of Appellants and Respondents and the same is hereby acknowledged by Respondent No.1;

¶43

ii. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) is paid by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1 on this day by way of Demand Draft dated 02/09/2024 bearing No.981124 Drawn on State Bank of India, Hagaribomanahalli Branch (issued by Hosapete Branch)

¶44

iii. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) is paid to Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.2 on this day by way of cash in presence of her counsel and before this Hon'ble Court and the same is acknowledged by the Respondent No.1.

¶45

e. In view of the above, the Respondent No.1 has agreed to withdraw the original suit filed by the Respondent No.1 and neither she nor anyone claiming under her including her successors, agents, representatives and assignees shall have any claims whatsoever under the agreement of sale dated 15/07/1999 and the sale deed executed by deceased Appellant No.1 infavour of Sri.J.N.Ganesh i.e. the brother of Respondent No.2 is valid, legal and binding on all the parties and pursuant to the aforesaid sale deed executed by deceased Appellant No.1 in favour of Sri.J.N.Ganesh, there has been a partition amongst J.N.Ganesh and Respondent No.2 and under the said registered partition, the property has been allotted to the share of Respondent No.2 and by virtue of

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12722 MSA No. 100040 of 2018

¶47

which the Respondent No.2 has now become the sole and absolute owner of the suit property.

¶48

f. The parties hereto agreed, confirm and ratify that the Respondent No.2 is the sole and absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and none of the parties hereto shall have any right, title or interest over the suit property.

¶49

g. It is also agreed by all the parties that the original documents which are in the custody of this Hon’ble Court shall be returned in favour of Respondent No.2. Further respondent No.1 also agreed and has no objection to hand over custody of all original documents pertaining to the suit property to Respondent No.2 which are produced before trial court in O.S. No.104/2011 before the Hon’ble Civil Judge and JMFC., Hagaribommanahalli which are as follows:

¶50

i. The original registered sale deed dated 28.04.1983 bearing vide document No.50/1983-94, executed by 1.Sarvagnya Murthy, Karthik Swamy, 3.Komaraswamy, 4.Nagaraju, 5.Sudarshan infavour of Nadedla Sheshagiriyamma w/o Nadedla venkatarathnam in respct of Sy.No.59, measuring 10-38 acres of Anekal village, Hagaribommanahalli Taluk, Ballari Dist.,

¶51

ii. The original agreement of sale executed by Nadendla Sheshagiriyamma W/o. Venkatarathnam in favour of P.M.Basamma W/o P.M.Eshwaraiah, dated 15.07.1999, pertaining to suit property.

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12722 MSA No. 100040 of 2018

¶53

iii. The original power of attorney dated 2.12.1999 executed by Nadendla Sheshagiriyamma W/o Venkataratnam in favour of P.M.Eshwaraiah s/o Chennabasaiah pertaining to suit property.”

¶54

Respondent No.1 –plaintiff submits that she has voluntarily entered into compromise and she submits that there is no force and coercion of anybody to enter into compromise. Appellants have also submits that they have voluntarily entered into compromise. Respondent No.1 admits receipt of cash of Rs.5,00,000/- earlier and Rs.15,00,000/- today. She also admits the receipt of demand draft for Rs.10,00,000/-, which is mentioned in para No.7 of the compromise petition. Respondent No.1 submits to confirm the decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.104/2011 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli.

¶55

In view of compromise between parties, the

¶56

matter is disposed of in terms of settlement.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12722 MSA No. 100040 of 2018

¶59

Draw decree accordingly.

¶60

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶61

DSP CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt. Prabhavathi. N D/O Late Smt.Sheshagiriyamma v. Smt. P.M. Basamma W/O Late Eshwaraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Prabhavathi. N D/O Late Smt.Sheshagiriyamma v. Smt. P.M. Basamma W/O Late Eshwaraiah

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

Kumar. Hasanain Mohammadesak Mujawar Vs Mohammadesak Allahuddin Mujawar

Narasimha S/O Venkataraman Sabhahit Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh Kallappa Tuppad Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Controller Vs Lakshmi Narayana S/O Sheshanna

The Executive Engineer Vs the Special Additional Land Acquisition Officer

Iravva Vs Abdul Rehman