Allowed

V.Subba Rao v. Dr.Narasimha Holla v

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024RFA/1595/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed a decree partly granting partition and separate possession. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into an amicable compromise. The Court recorded the compromise, satisfied itself of its legality, and allowed the appeal in terms of the compromise petition, modifying the decree accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Decree modified in terms of compromise petition; appeal allowed.

V.Subba Rao Vs Dr.Narasimha Holla v — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36101-DB RFA No. 1595 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1595/2014 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

V.SUBBA RAO S/O LATE K.KRISHNA HOLLA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, NO.183, VIJAYA LAKSHMI HOMES, T-1, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, SARVABOUMA NAGARA, CHIKKALASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 061.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

DR.NARASIMHA HOLLA V S/O LATE K.KRISHNA HOLLA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, EYE SPECIALIST, NEAR KUNDESHWARA TEMPLE, VODERAHOBLI VILLAGE, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201.

¶15

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHAR HANDE, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, NO.18, CHURCH ROAD, MARAPPA GARDEN, J.C.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 006.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B R, ADV. FOR C/R1 NOTICE R2 D/W V/O DATED 04.09.2024)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36101-DB RFA No. 1595 of 2014

¶19

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, O-41, RULE-1 OF OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.07.2014 PASSED IN O.S.8894/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶22

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶25

This appeal by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.8894/2007

¶26

on the file of the XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore City (CCH-39) (for short, ‘Trial Court’) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2014, wherein the suit of the plaintiff i.e., respondent No.1 herein is allowed holding that plaintiff is entitled for half share in the compensation awarded in respect of item Nos.1 to 4 properties i.e., Rs.96,73,040-00 out of total compensation of Rs.1,93,46,081-00 and in item Nos.5 and 6 properties. Further, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.96,73,040-00 from defendant No.1 by executing the decree in case the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36101-DB RFA No. 1595 of 2014

¶28

defendant No.1 fails to pay the said amount within the period of 30 days. It is also held that the plaintiff is entitled for possession of his half share in item Nos.5 and 6 properties by metes and bounds.

¶29

The above appeal was admitted on 24.05.2023.

¶30

The appellant i.e., defendant No.1 before the Trial Court Sri.V.Subba Rao along with his learned counsel Sri.Gururaj Joshi and respondent No.1/plaintiff present through power of attorney holder Smt.P.Shubha along with counsel. They are identified by their respective counsel.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that during the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff and defendant No.1 have entered into settlement and accordingly compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC is filed today before the Court. The terms of the compromise petition reads as follows:

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36101-DB RFA No. 1595 of 2014

¶33

“1. That the parties to the above appeal are brothers and sister and are children of Late.K.Krishna Holla and Late Kamalaxiamma.

¶34

2. That the 1^st Respondent herein had filed a suit for partition against the appellant herein in O.S.No.8894/2007 on the file of the City Civil Judge (CCH-39), Bengaluru, with a prayer for partition of the suit schedule properties into 2 equal shares by metes and bounds and to deliver one such share and put in possession of the same as per the registered will dated 09.07.1969.

¶35

3. That during the pendency of the said suit, the suit schedule properties were acquired for the purpose of Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., and the appellant herein had received the entire compensation amount of Rs.1,93,46,081/-(Rs. One Crore, Three Lakhs, Forty Six thousand Eighty one only).

¶36

4. That the Hon'ble Trail Court after the trail was pleased to allow the said suit in part holding that the 1^st Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled for half share in the compensation awarded in respect of item Nos.1 to 4 of suit schedule properties, i.e., Rs.96,73,040/out of the total compensation of Rs.1,93,46,081/and half share in item Nos.5 and 6 properties.

¶37

5. That the suit against the Respondent No.2 herein has been dismissed and she was just a

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36101-DB RFA No. 1595 of 2014

¶39

formal party to the proceedings. Further she has not challenged the impugned judgment before any court of law.

¶40

6. The appellant herein preferred the above appeal challenging the said judgment and decree on various grounds.

¶41

7. That both the appellant and the 1^st respondent herein are own brothers, aged more than 80 years and with the advice of their well wishers have settled their dispute amicably between them in respect of the suit schedule properties, as per the following terms.

¶42

(i) That both the above named parties were having more agricultural property bearing one Sy.No.88/6A6B, measuring 0.78 cents situated at Vaderahobli Village, Kundapura Tq as their ancestral property. They sold the same on 08.01.2024 to a third party for a valuable sale consideration. Out of the total sale consideration the Appellant herein had received 1/3^rd of the total sale amount and the 1^st Respondent herein had received 2/3^rd of the total sale amount.

¶43

(ii) The 1^st Respondent therefore accepts and acknowledges that the amount received as stated above includes his share in respect of the impugned decree towards his full and final satisfaction. In view of the same the 1^st Respondent herein/Plaintiff submit that the impugned decree is fully satisfied and both the parties will not be having any claim against

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36101-DB RFA No. 1595 of 2014

¶45

each other in respect of the above named suit schedule properties.

¶46

Wherefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dispose of the above appeal as per the above terms of this compromise petition in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶47

The parties present before the Court admit that

¶48

they have entered into compromise on the terms stated in

¶49

the compromise petition.

¶50

We have gone through the terms of the compromise petition and satisfied that the same is legal and in accordance with law. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise petition and the decree is modified to the above extent.

¶51

SD/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶52

SD/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶53

¶54

CT:bms:

V.Subba Rao v. Dr.Narasimha Holla v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Subba Rao v. Dr.Narasimha Holla v

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

Smt.Mayamma Vs Smt.T.Lalitha

Sri Venkatawamy Vs Smt Subbamma @ Papamma

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Vodafone Qatar Pqsc

The Commissioner Vs Mrs C Tulasija

Sri S K Revanasiddappa Vs Dr Prema Prabhudev

Bosch Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner