Disposed

Shankarappa v. Smt Susheelamma

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024RFA/1627/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants in a partition suit appealed against a partial decree for partition and mesne profits. Parties filed a joint compromise: plaintiffs received Rs.25 lakh each and 41 guntas each in Sy.No.31, giving up rights in other properties. Court recorded the compromise, set aside the preliminary decree and directed a fresh decree in its terms.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed on compromise; preliminary decree set aside and fresh preliminary decree to be drawn per joint compromise petition.

Shankarappa Vs Smt Susheelamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36356 RFA No. 1627 of 2006

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1627 OF 2006 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHANKARAPPA

¶9

SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶10

1(A) SMT. NARASAMMA W/O LATE SHANKARAPPA, MAJOR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶11

1(B) SRI. UDAYAKUMAR @ BABU .S S/O LATE. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT KEMBATTAHALLI VILLAGE

¶13

UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

1(C) SMT. RUKMINI @ RUKMINAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY D/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶16

1(D) SMT. PREMA @ MANJULA W/O MANJESH D/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶17

APPELLANTS 1(C) AND 1(D) ARE R/AT MAHALINGAPURA VILLAGE KALLEBAL POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 106.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36356 RFA No. 1627 of 2006

¶19

SRI. SHEENAPPA

¶20

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs

¶21

2(A) SMT. PREMA SRINIVAS W/O LATE SHEENAPPA @ M. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶22

2(B) ANIL KUMAR .S D/O LATE SHEENAPPA @ M. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶23

2(C) SHASHIKALA .S D/O LATE SHEENAPPA @ M. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶24

2(D) CHANDRAKALA .S D/O LATE SHEENAPPA @ M. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶25

2(A) TO 2(D) ARE R/AT GOTTIGERE VILLAGE BANNERGHATTA NATIONAL PARK MAIN ROAD BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-562 107.

¶26

[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V/O DATED 27.08.2024]

¶27

…APPELLANTS

¶28

(BY SRI. RAJESH SHETTIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR A1(A TO D); SRI. UMESH .B.N, ADVOCATE FOR A2(A TO D))

¶29

AND:

¶30

SMT SUSHEELAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs

¶31

1(A) G.A. CHANDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs

¶32

1(A)(A) SMT. SHASHIKALA D/O LATE G.A. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36356 RFA No. 1627 of 2006

¶34

1(A)(B) SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE G.A. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶35

1(A)(C) JANARDHAN @ ANU S/O LATE G.A. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶36

1(A)(D) SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O LATE G.A. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶37

R1(A)(A) TO R1(A)(D) ARE R/AT NO.4, AVALAPPA COMPOUND OPPOSITE TO BBMP OFFICE NEXT TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL GOTTIGERI BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 083.

¶38

1(B) SMT. SAVITRAMMA W/O KEMPANNA D/O SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NERIGE VILLAGE, NERIGE POST VIA SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 125.

¶39

1(C) SMT. SUGUNA W/O R. ESHWAR SING (SHIVANNA) D/O SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS J.P. NAGAR, 8 PHASE JAMBUSAVARI DINNE BANGALORE-560 076.

¶40

1(D) G.A. RAJENDRA S/O LATE AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36356 RFA No. 1627 of 2006

¶42

1(E) G.A. GOPAL S/O LATE AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶43

1(F) G.A. SURESH

¶44

S/O LATE AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶45

1(G) G.A. RAVI S/O LATE AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶46

1(D) TO 1(G) ARE R/AT OPPOSITE TO BBMP OFFICE NEXT TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL GOTTIGERI BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 083.

¶47

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.19, 2ND CROSS HOSAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶48

…RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SRI. MUNIREDDY .M.N, ADVOCATE FOR R1( B AND C); SRI. R. PUSHPAHASA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A)(A, C TO D), R1(D) TO R1(F) AND R2; R1(G) SERVED)

¶50

THIS RFA FILED U/O 41 R 1 R/W SEC. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.7.4.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6498/90 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESS. JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-2) PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND MESNE PROFIT.

¶51

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

¶52

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶53

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36356 RFA No. 1627 of 2006

¶54

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶55

The captioned appeal is by the defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6498/1990 on the file of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH No.2).

¶56

Today, a joint compromise petition is filed recording compromise between plaintiffs and defendants. In terms of compromise, plaintiff No.2/Gowramma and legal heirs of plaintiff No.1/Susheelamma have amicably settled the matter and in terms of settlement, defendants have handed over Rs.25,00,000/- each by way of Demand Drafts. These Demand Drafts are handed over to plaintiff No.2/Gowramma and the son of plaintiff No.1/ Susheelamma namely Rajendra who is present before the Court.

¶57

While recording compromise, plaintiff No.2 and

¶58

legal heirs of plaintiff No.1, however, insisted that they

¶59

should get equal share in 41 guntas in Sy.No.31. This additional demand made by plaintiff No.2 and legal heirs

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:36356 RFA No. 1627 of 2006

¶62

of plaintiff No.1 is accepted by all contesting defendants. They have agreed to give 41 guntas to the legal heirs of plaintiff No.1 and as also to plaintiff No.2.

¶63

The joint compromise petition is signed. Subpara (c) of para 16 is modified by the counsel on record with the consent of the Court. The joint compromise petition is signed by all the parties. Counsel on record have identified the parties before the Court. The said compromise is lawful and the same is entered into out of their free will and consent. None of the parties who are signatories to the compromise petition have complained any duress, coercion or undue influence. This compromise petition is admitted and is taken on record.

¶64

Having examined the terms and conditions indicated in the joint compromise petition, the plaintiff No.2 and legal heirs of plaintiff No.1 have agreed to take cash to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- and give up their rights in all the properties except in Sy.No.31, measuring 41

¶65

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:36356 RFA No. 1627 of 2006

¶66

guntas where legal heirs of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 are allotted 41 guntas each. Same is indicated at para 16(c) and 16(d).

¶67

Learned counsel submits that whereabouts of Respondent No.1(a)(b)/Manjula are not known and

¶68

therefore, she is not a signatory to the joint compromise petition. Parties to the joint compromise petition have indicated at para 14 that she is missing and is not available to sign the joint compromise petition. It is made clear that the compromise arrived at between the plaintiffs and defendants will not bind the said respondent No.1(a)(b)/Manjula.

¶69

The amended plaint and cause title are filed along with joint compromise petition. Same are taken on record.

¶70

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. The preliminary decree drawn by the Court below in O.S.No.6498/1990 is set aside.

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:36356 RFA No. 1627 of 2006

¶72

¶73

Registry is directed to draw fresh preliminary decree

¶74

in terms of the joint compromise petition filed by the

¶75

parties.

¶76

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶77

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78

Shankarappa v. Smt Susheelamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankarappa v. Smt Susheelamma

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

A Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Marakka Vs the State Government

Sri H R Suryanarayan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Kumar G Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G K Anand Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Dhanalakshmi T S Vs State of Karnataka