Disposed

K R Suresh Guptha v. Smt. Adirathnamma

Karnataka HC26 Feb 2024RFA/1273/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular First Appeal and cross-objection arising from a suit for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deeds were settled amicably by compromise petition; appellant recognised as absolute owner, respondents received compensation, and both matters were disposed of in terms of compromise.

What did the court decide?

Appellant declared absolute owner of suit property via compromise decree; respondents compensated (Rs.50,000 each / Rs.10 lakh); full court fee refunded.

K R Suresh Guptha Vs Smt. Adirathnamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7881 RFA No. 1273 of 2013 C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1273 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

C/W

¶8

RFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 22 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)

¶9

IN RFA NO.1273/2013

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

K.R. SURESH GUPTHA, S/O LATE K.S. RANGAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.557/C,6TH A MAIN ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. H.S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. ADIRATHNAMMA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶17

1(A). SMT. SATYABHAMA, AGED ABOTU 55 YEARS NO.652, 1ST MAIN ROAD NAGENDRA BLOCK BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE - 560 050. 1(B). SMT. K.R. NAGAVENI, W/O SRI. K.C. RAGHURAMA SETTY

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:7881 RFA No. 1273 of 2013 C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014

¶20

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.514, 7TH MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 019.

¶21

1(C). SMT K.R. RAJALAKSHMI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶22

1(C)(I) SRI. RAJENDRA K., S/O KRISHNAIAH,H/O LATE K.R. RAJALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

¶23

1(C)(II) SRI. BALAJI R., S/O RAJENDRA K. & LATE K.R. RAJALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶24

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.4, BHAVANI ROAD, NEAR MUTYALAMMA TEMPLE, HEBBAGODI,BENGALURU - 560 099.

¶25

1(C)(III) SMT. SARITA R., W/O R. RAJENDRA, D/O RAJENDRA K. & LATE K.R. RAJALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. RESIDING AT NO.2, 2^ND FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN RAOD, NEAR BANK COLONY, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 062. 1(D). SRI. K.R. ANANTHAPADMANABHA GUPTA, S/O LATE SRI. K.S. RANGAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,ANANTHA RICE CORNER, NO.41, SHIVASHAKTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 062.

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:7881 RFA No. 1273 of 2013 C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014

¶27

¶28

1(E). SMT. K.R. BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O MANJUNATHA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.98, 2ND MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, GANIGARA PALYA RESHME NAGAR,BANGALORE - 560 062.

¶29

SMT. RUKMINAMMA, W/O PRAKASH GUPTA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶30

M.P. SATISH KUMAR, S/O PRAKASH GUPTA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶31

PRAKASH GUPTHA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶32

4(A) SMT. RUKMINAMMA, W/O PRAKASH GUPTHA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

¶33

4(B) SMT. MANJULA PM, D/O LATE PRAKASH GUPTHA, W/O MAHESH BABU P.R., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶34

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.41, PARAMESHWARA BUILDING, BAGALUR ROAD, HOSUR - 635 109, TAMILNADU.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-E) AND

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:7881 RFA No. 1273 of 2013 C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014

¶38

ALSO FOR R1(C)(I TO III); SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2-R4(A & B)

¶39

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.5.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7991/2003 ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶40

IN RFA. CROB NO.22/2014

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

SMT. RUKMINAMMA, W/O PRAKASH GUPTA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶43

SRI. M.P. SATISH KUMAR, S/O PRAKASH GUPTA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶44

1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.6, 11TH CROSS, DAVID CHURCH ROAD, RAMA MURTHY NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶45

SRI. PRAKASH GUPTHA, S/O LATE SRI. GATTAIAH SETTY, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶46

3(A) SMT. RUKMINAMMA, W/O PRAKASH GUPTHA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

¶47

3(B) SMT. MANJULA PM, D/O LATE PRAKASH GUPTHA, W/O MAHESH BABU P.R.,

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:7881 RFA No. 1273 of 2013 C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014

¶50

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶51

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.41, PARAMESHWARA BUILDING, BAGALUR ROAD, HOSUR - 635 109, TAMILNADU.

¶52

…CROSS OBJECTORS

¶53

(BY SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE)

¶54

AND:

¶55

SRI. K.R. SURESH GUPTHA, S/O LATE K.S. RANGAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NO.557/C, 6TH A MAIN ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶56

SMT. ADIRATHNAMMA, W/O LATE SRI. K.S. RANGAIAH SETTY, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶57

2(A). SMT. SATHYABHAMA, W/O N. DEVARAJ GUPTA, AGED ABOTU 65 YEARS, NO.652, 1ST MAIN ROAD NAGENDRA BLOCK BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE - 560 050. 2(B). SMT. K.R. NAGAVENI, W/O SRI. K.C. RAGHURAMA SETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.514, 7TH MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 019.

¶58

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:7881 RFA No. 1273 of 2013 C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014

¶59

1(C). SMT K.R. RAJALAKSHMI, W/O RAJENDRA GUPTA, MAJOR IN AGE, NO.4, BHAVANI ROAD, NEAR MUTYALAMMA TEMPLE, HEBBAGODI, BENGALURU - 560 099. 1(D). SRI. K.R. ANANTHAPADMANABHA GUPTA, S/O LATE SRI. K.S. RANGAIAH SETTY, MAJOR IN AGE, ANANTHA RICE CORNER, NO.41, SHIVASHAKTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 062. 1(E). SMT. K.R. BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O MANJUNATHA GUPTA MAJOR IN AGE, NO.98, 2ND MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, GANIGARA PALYA RESHME NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 062. …RESPONDENTS

¶60

(BY SRI. H.S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE FOR R2(A-E) )

¶61

THIS RFA.CROB IN RFA No.1273/2013 IS FILED U/ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:27.5.2013 PASSED IN O.S.No.7991/2003 ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶62

THIS RFA AND RFA CROB, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶63

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:7881 RFA No. 1273 of 2013 C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014

¶64

JUDGMENT

¶65

This appeal is arising from judgment and decree in O.S.No.7991/2003 on the file of XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The said suit is for declaration of plaintiff's title over the suit property and also to declare the cancellation sale deed dated 06.04.1998 at No.88/98-99 registered before Sub-registrar, Basavanagudi as null and void. The plaintiff has also sought a declaration to declare the registered sale deed dated 13.04.1998 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 at document No.124/98-99 before the Sub-registrar, Basavanagudi and null and void. Consequential relief of injunction is also sought.

¶66

¶67

The plaintiff filed appeal challenging the said

¶68

judgment and decree.

¶69

*Paragraph No.2 deleted vide court order dated: 22.04.2024.

¶70

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:7881 RFA No. 1273 of 2013 C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014

¶71

Respondents No.2 and 4 being aggrieved by certain observations made in the aforementioned

¶72

judgment and decree filed RFA.CROB.No.22/2014.

¶73

The learned counsel for respondent No.4, Cross-Objector has filed a memo along with Special Power of Attorney dated 23.02.2024 executed by respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.4(a) (same property in different capacity) in favour of respondent No.4(b). Except respondent No.4, who is represented by respondent No.4(b) all other parties to the present appeal are present before this Court.

¶74

Learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents have identified their respective parties before this Court.

¶75

This Court has made an enquiry. The parties to

¶76

the proceeding, who are present before this Court admit that they have understood the contents of the compromise petition and have voluntarily signed the

¶77

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:7881 RFA No. 1273 of 2013 C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014

¶78

same. In view of the settlement arrived at among the parties, the appellant is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property.

¶79

This Court has gone through the contents of the

¶80

compromise petition. This Court finds that there is no legal impediment to accept the compromise petition as the same is lawful. The terms and conditions of the compromise petition are as follows:

¶81

The Appellant and Respondents submit that they have amicably settled the above dispute at the intervention of friends and well wishers as stated below:-

¶82

The Appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the Respondents agreed that the suit schedule property belongs to the Appellant and he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶83

The Respondents will have no claim whatsoever in the below mentioned schedule property.

¶84

The Respondents 4(a) and 4(b) will withdraw their cross-objections filed by them in the above Appeal

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2024:KHC:7881 RFA No. 1273 of 2013 C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014

¶87

and the same may be dismissed as not pressed by them.

¶88

The LRs of the 1^st Respondent 1(a), (b), (d) & (e) and LRs of 1(c) i.e. (1)(c)(ii) & (iii), have received Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each and agree that they have no claim whatsoever in the schedule property and they agree that the Appellant is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶89

The LRs of the 4^th Respondent submits that they have received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) from the Appellant by way of Demand Draft bearing No.714474 dated 01/01/2024 drawn on the State Bank of India, Hanumanthanagar Branch, Bengaluru and they have no claim whatsoever in the suit schedule property.

¶90

The Appellant and Respondents pray that this Hon’ble be pleased dispose of the above Appeal and Cross-Objections in the above terms of Compromise and a Compromise Decree may be drawn in terms of Compromise in the interest of Justice.

¶91

Hence, the following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

(i) The appeal and the Cross-Objection is disposed of

¶94

in terms of the compromise petition.

¶95

11 -

¶96

NC: 2024:KHC:7881 RFA No. 1273 of 2013 C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014

¶97

(ii) Registry to draw the decree and incorporate the terms of the compromise petition.

¶98

(iii) The appellant and the Cross-Objector are entitled to refund of full Court Fee.

¶99

Sd/JUDGE

¶100

PHM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

K R Suresh Guptha v. Smt. Adirathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K R Suresh Guptha v. Smt. Adirathnamma

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 H D Kiran Kumar Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Dayananda Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C Aswathanarayanagowda Vs the State of Karnataka

C P Anupama Vs Sri M Shivakumar

Smt M v Sarojamma Vs Sri K G Harish

Nagarajappa Vs Rojamma @ Sarojamma