Disposed

Smt Gowramma v. Smt M Jayamma

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024RFA/1692/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a Regular First Appeal regarding a final partition decree. The appeals were settled via a joint memo where respondents agreeing to transfer specific land shares to appellants. The Court found the settlement legal and in the interest of parties.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; pending incidental applications disposed of based on the agreed joint settlement memo.

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt M Jayamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10623-DB RFA No. 1692 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1692 OF 2021 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE. P.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.510, 46TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 041.

¶9

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A

¶10

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. N.PUSHPALATHA, D/O LATE. P.NARASIMHAIAH OR NARASIMHASWAMY (AS ADMITTED), W/O H.P.NARASIMHA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.510, 46TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 041. PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 109, 3^RD CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 070.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. B.S. KIRAN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. M.JAYAMMA, W/O LATE. P. NARASIMHAIAH @ APPAJI GOWDA,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10623-DB RFA No. 1692 of 2021

¶17

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 010. PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 858, C/O NIJAGUNA MURTHY, KALACHAR STREET, ANIKETANA ROAD, AGRAHARA, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶18

SMT. LATHARANI, W/O RAJASHEKAR, D/O LATE. P.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NEAR JAIN HOSTEL, ARAVID NAGAR, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶19

SMT. NAGAVENI, W/O NIJAGUNA MURTHY, D/O LATE. P.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.858 KALACHAR STREET, ANIKETANA ROAD, AGRAHARA, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶20

KUM. N.SUMA, D/O LATE. P.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.46, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, WESST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 010. ALSO R/AT NEAR JAIN HOSTEL, ARAVIND NAGAR, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶21

SRI. HARISH KUMAR, S/O LATE. P.NARASIMHAIAH,

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10623-DB RFA No. 1692 of 2021

¶23

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.109, 3^RD CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 070. PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NO. 001, GROUND FLOOR, SRAVANI ABHIMAN, 30TH CROSS ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 041.

¶24

SRI. SATHISH KUMAR, S/O LATE. P.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 109, 3^RD CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU – 70. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.1454, 17TH CROSS, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 078.

¶25

SMT. N.LEELAVATHI, D/O LATE. P.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 421, 3^RD CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU – 560 027. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.002, IVY BLOSSOM APARTMENTS, 13TH CROSS, 3RD PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 078.

¶26

SMT. N.KALAVATHI, D/O LATE. P.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.55/56, 2ND CROSS, SAHYADRI LAYOUT, PANDURANGAPUR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10623-DB RFA No. 1692 of 2021

¶28

SMT. N.GAYATHRIDEVI, D/O LATE. P.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.614, PUTTAPPA BUILDING, TEMPLE STREET, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU.

¶29

SMT. ANITHA, W/O S.V. VENUGOPALCHAR, MAJOR, R/AT KARTHIK FARMS, KAGALIPURA, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. A. K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; MS. KOUSAR YASMEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R6; MS. PREETI KAREDDEY, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. S.D.N. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI. H. N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R10; SMT. SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R9)

¶32

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2020 PASSED IN FDP No. 35/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, C/c XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XX RULE 12 AND 18 OF CPC.

¶33

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:10623-DB RFA No. 1692 of 2021

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

This appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, is challenging the order dated 29.09.2020 in FDP No.35/2008 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil

¶38

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. FDP No.35/2018 is filed for drawing up of final decree pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1286/1995.

¶39

Learned counsels appearing for the parties submit that during the pendency of the above appeal, parties have settled their dispute and have filed joint memo on 06.03.2024 before the Court. Today, learned counsels for the parties filed memo dated 14.03.2024.

¶40

Learned counsels Sri B.S.Kiran, Sri A.K.Vasanth, Ms. Kouser Yasmeen, Sri A.Madhusudhana Rao, Ms. Preeti Kareddy, Sri SDN Prasad, Sri H.N.Basavaraju and Sri Spoorthy Hegde Nagaraja, for appellants and respondents are present. All the parties to the appeal except respondent Nos.5 and 10, have signed the joint memo filed on 06.03.2024. Memo filed today is signed by

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10623-DB RFA No. 1692 of 2021

¶42

learned counsels appearing for the parties. On the date of filing joint memo, appellant Nos.1 and 2 as well as respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 9 were present before the Court. Their presence is noted and their signatures are taken on order sheet. The parties were identified by their respective counsels.

¶43

The relevant portion of the joint memo filed on 06.03.2024 at patagraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 reads as follows:

¶44

“7. The matter stood thus, in view of the submissions of the Parties before the Hon’ble Court during the hearing 01/03/2023, all the Parties herein & their Counsel’s held the meeting in various dates & finally reached to the compromise formula as follows.

¶45

a) The Respondents No.2 to 4 above agreed to give/transfer/release/relinquish jointly 20 Guntas out of lands of 3 Acres 01 Gunta separately allotted to each of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4, and measuring in all 9 Acres; 03 Guntas, in the Order dated 29.09.2020 in FDP No.35/2008 in favour of Appellant Nos.1 & 2, to be held, owned,

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:10623-DB RFA No. 1692 of 2021

¶48

possessed and enjoyed by the said appellants jointly without any let, hindrance or interference from the said respondents. The said 20 Guntas of land is earmarked & to that effect the sketch and the measurements as well as the boundaries are fixed. The said 20 Guntas of land is given to Appellant No.1 & 2 collectively, the copy of the Sketch is herewith produced and annexed herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

¶49

b) The Appellant Nos.1 & 2 assure and acknowledge that, they are fully satisfied for receival of 20 Guntas of land from Respondent Nos.2 to 4 of Immovable Property mentioned in the Schedule below. The Appellant Nos.1 & 2 and Respondent Nos.5 to 9 further assures and undertakes that, they have no further any claim whatsoever against the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 with respect to the Schedule ‘A’ Property. For the said arrangement all the parties consented and agreed. Further all the parties’ state, affirm and confirm that they do not have any claim or claims amongst themselves in respect of the Schedule ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ Properties in FDP35/2008. Further, Respondent Nos.1 to 4

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:10623-DB RFA No. 1692 of 2021

¶52

solemnly state, affirm and confirm that they do not have any other claim(s), issue(s), demand(s) or grievance(s) against the Appellants and Respondent Nos.5 to 9 herein.

¶53

8. It is submitted that all the Parties in the above proceeding are fully agreed and satisfied that the above arrangement is full & final settlement of all issues related to all the properties in the said FDP.

¶54

9. Appellants 1 & 2 and Respondents No.1 to 4 further state, agree and undertake not to initiate any further actions or proceedings before any court of forum of competent jurisdiction against each other in respect of the existing dispute(s). Further, Respondents No.7 & 9 will take their respective shares as shown in the Annexure attached herewith.”

¶55

Appellant Nos.1 and 2 in addition to what is allotted to them by the order under challenge, have agreed to take jointly additional 20 guntas of land and respondent Nos.2 to 4 have agreed to relinquish and transfer

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:10623-DB RFA No. 1692 of 2021

¶58

20 guntas of land to appellant Nos.1 and 2 in terms of the schedule and sketch attached to the joint memo.

¶59

Memo filed today would state that the share allotted to respondent No.5, who was defendant No.2 in the FDP has not been altered and respondent No.5 has also not challenged the final decree. Further it states that respondent No.1, who was plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.1286/1995 was not allotted any share as she was second wife of father of respondent Nos.2 to 9. Moreover, respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 has not challenged either preliminary decree or order passed in FDP. Respondent No.10 is purchaser from appellant No.1 as well as respondent Nos.5 and 6. The share allotted to respondent No.5 is not altered or would not get altered by virtue of the joint memo. Hence, this settlement in no way would affect respondent No.10 and present settlement is only in respect of share allotted to appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶60

10 -

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:10623-DB RFA No. 1692 of 2021

¶62

On going through the terms of the joint memo, we are satisfied that the terms are in accordance with law and are in the interest of the parties.

¶63

In terms of joint memo and the sketch attached to

¶64

the memo filed today, appeal stands disposed of.

¶65

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs stand disposed of.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Smt Gowramma v. Smt M Jayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma v. Smt M Jayamma

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

Saifuddin Vs J M Muneeruddin

Vice Admiral Bola Radhakrishna Rao (Retd) Vs Union of India

M/S. Karnataka Power Transmission Vs Principal Commissioner of

Smt Rathnamma Vs Smt Sudharani

M/S Hercules Sports Vs Smt T Amudha

Mr. Baaskaran. S Vs the Registrar