Disposed

Smt Sapna Patil v. Sri P Sujit Kumar Shetty

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2024RFA/1803/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sisters appealed against dismissal of their partition suit against their brother. Pending appeal, parties settled amicably and filed a joint memo recording a registered family settlement deed. The court accepted the memo, modified the impugned decree accordingly, and disposed of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned decree modified in terms of the joint memo of settlement; appeal disposed of.

Smt Sapna Patil Vs Sri P Sujit Kumar Shetty — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11241 RFA No. 1803 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1803 OF 2014 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT SAPNA PATIL, W/O PRADEEP PATIL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O A-LA-MODE NO.2, NAVALKAR ARCADE, DR A B ROAD, PANJIM-1, GOA.

¶9

SMT SEEMA VILAS, W/O VILAS JAIN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.36, DVC LAYOUT, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSORE-1.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI K SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI P SUJIT KUMAR SHETTY, Digitally S/O LATE MUNIRAJA SHETTY, signed by AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, PRAMILA G V R/O DOOR NO.758/12, 23^RD CROSS, 7^TH BLOCK, Location: HIGH COURT JAYANAGAR, WEST OF KANAKAPURA ROAD, OF BANGALORE-560085. KARNATAKA

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 5.11.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.568/2006 ON THE FILE OF XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION.

¶17

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11241 RFA No. 1803 of 2014

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment

¶21

and decree in O.S. No.568/2006 on the file of the XXXVIII Additional City Civil Court at Bangalore. The said suit is filed by two sisters against the brother claiming partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties described in the schedule - A and B. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs are in appeal challenging the aforementioned decree.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶23

plaintiffs/appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The appellants and respondent are present before the Court. Learned counsel for the parties have identified the respective parties.

¶24

The parties have filed a memo stating that in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the deed of family settlement is being registered before the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore. The parties who are present

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:11241 RFA No. 1803 of 2014

¶27

before the Court, are admitting the contents of the joint memo. They submit that they have voluntarily entered into the settlement without any coercion or pressure.

¶28

This Court has perused the terms of the settlement recorded in the joint memo. This Court does not find any impediment to accept the memo reporting settlement. The memo reporting settlement is accepted.

¶29

In terms of the memo, the impugned decree is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

CHS

¶32

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt Sapna Patil v. Sri P Sujit Kumar Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sapna Patil v. Sri P Sujit Kumar Shetty

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.Madhusudhana Vs the Commissioner

M/S Cvc Biorefineries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Shivalingaiah R

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs Smt B N Kokila

The Accountant General'S Office Employees Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Union of India

Sri Aristatal M Vs Mr Edison Plato

The President Vs Sri N G Raju