Disposed

Smt Sujaya Gangadhar Murthy v. Krishnappa

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2024RFA/1661/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Oral judgment dismissing the appeal filed under Section 96 CPC. The court accepted a joint compromise petition where the respondent agreed to sell a portion of the disputed property to the appellants for Rs. 32,50,000, with payment terms and e-khatha conditions specified. The compromise was deemed lawful, leading to the disposal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed off in view of the compromise. The respondent agreed to sell the property portion and was directed to procure e-khatha and pay property tax.

Smt Sujaya Gangadhar Murthy Vs Krishnappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:52816 RFA No. 1661 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1661 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUJAYA GANGADHAR MURTHY, W/O LATE GANGADHAR MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶9

G. JAYANTH S/O LATE GANGADHAR MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶10

BOTH R/O NO. 36/1, GRAMADEVATHA STREET, UPPARAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 004

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, R/O NO. 2591, SRIRAMA NILAYA, 17^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, BANASHAKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE 560 070

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA A SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:52816 RFA No. 1661 of 2021

¶20

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC. 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.03.2021 PASSED IN OS.No.7735/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant / plaintiff under Section-96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.7735/2015, dated 06.03.2021, passed by the LX Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

¶25

The appellant was the plaintiff and the

¶26

respondent was the defendant before the trial court. The ranks of the parties are referred to as before the Trial Court.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52816 RFA No. 1661 of 2021

¶28

During the pendency of the appeal, both

¶29

appellants / plaintiffs and the respondent / defendant appeared through their counsels and filed a joint compromise petition under Order-23, Rule-3 of the CPC, along with the independent affidavit filed by both the parties.

¶30

As per the compromise petition of the parties,

¶31

the plot no.36, Gramhadevatha Street, Lalbagh Uparhalli, Mavalli, Bangalore assigned Municipal New No.36 (Old No.5) at Uparahalli Road, Bangalore Ward No.143, Mavalli PID No.61-31-36, measuring east to west 32 feet and north to south 83 feet. The said property belonged to Smt.Lingamma, and the mother-in-law of the first appellant. Lingamma executed a Will dated 19.03.1994 and assigned the front portion to her 2^nd and 4^th sons measuring 27 feet x 34 feet and middle portion North to South 83 feet and in the middle portion east to west 27 1/2 feet to 32 feet to the appellant - husband and bequeathed

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:52816 RFA No. 1661 of 2021

¶33

to the extreme hind portion to the respondent herein, which is measuring east to west 30 feet and north to south 15 feet and thereby the suit has been instituted by the plaintiff as regards to the existence of the passage towards the leading to Grama Devate Street and also regarding sewage pipeline, which passed beneath the land of the respondent.

¶34

Due to the intervention of the mediators and

¶35

well-wishers, the parties have settled the dispute amicably among/between themselves. It is mutually agreed between the parties that the respondent has come forward to sell his portion of property bearing No.36/3 facing Pattabhi Ram Road on the Eastern side to the appellants by mutual consent of the parties by fixing a lumpsum price of Rs.32,50,000/-. Out of the said amount, the appellants have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, through a

¶36

DD No.381723, dated 16.12.2024 drawn on Shree Subramanyeswara Cooperative Bank Limited, V.V.Puram Branch, in favour of respondent B.Krishanappa and agreed

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:52816 RFA No. 1661 of 2021

¶39

to pay the remaining balance of Rs.22,50,000/- on or before end of 25^th January'2025. The appellant has undertaken to pay the amount on the day of registration, if e-khatha is provided by the respondent.

¶40

Accordingly, the said DD has been handed over to the respondent, who has appeared through his counsel and physically present before the Court. The same is received and accepted. The respondent shall also pay the upto date property tax and procure e-khatha to convey the property at his cost. The respondent shall also cooperate and produce all the title deeds and alleged documents including the plan house built to their banks/ financial institutions to get the title vetted.

¶41

The compromise is in accordance with law and

¶42

accordingly, the same is accepted. Consequently, the appeal is disposed off in view of the compromise.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:52816 RFA No. 1661 of 2021

¶45

8. Office is directed to return the original bills

¶46

produced by the respondent / defendant to the learned

¶47

counsel for the respondent.

¶48

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶49

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Smt Sujaya Gangadhar Murthy v. Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sujaya Gangadhar Murthy v. Krishnappa

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

Shri K v Vinay Vs Smt Vidya Manjunath

Vernal Vishanth Dsouza Vs State of Karnataka

J. Prem Kumar Vs Smt. J. Vimala Kanthi

Somashekar @ Deadly Soma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Krishna Vs Sri.K.S.Raghavendra

Pramod N Vs State of Karnataka by