Disposed

Smt Krishnaveni v. Smt R Shantha

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2024RFA/956/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a first appeal challenging judgments dismissing suits for declaration and injunction. The court accepted a compromise petition where appellants admitted the respondent's ownership, relinquished all claims, and waived further interference in return for litigation reimbursement.

What did the court decide?

The first appeal was disposed of per the compromise terms; the second appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. A decree was directed to be drawn according to the compromise.

Smt Krishnaveni Vs Smt R Shantha — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 956 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)

¶10

C/W

¶11

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 955 OF 2024

¶12

IN RFA No. 956/2024

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

SMT. KRISHNAVENI AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O LATE M RAJU @ MUNIRAJU,

¶15

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SRI M GOPAL

¶17

(SINCE DECEASED BY LRS)

¶18

SMT.N.R.SHOBHA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O LATE M.G.GOPAL,

¶19

SMT. G. BHAVANASREE AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O LATE M GOPAL,

¶20

SRI. PUSHPA SAI VARDHAN AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O LATE M GOPAL,

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶22

SMT. THANMAY SHREE AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, D/O LATE GOPAL,

¶23

SRI. SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE M RAJU @ MUNIRAJU,

¶24

SRI M RAGHUPATHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE M RAJU @ MUNIRAJU,

¶25

APPELLANTS NOS.1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.8, GOKULA NILAYA, BASAVANNA TEMPLE, BASAVANAGUDI STREET, ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030.

¶26

SMT. YASHODA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O LATE M RAJU @ MUNIRAJU, RESIDING AT NO.11, THIPPAIAH LAYOUT, DEVASANDRA, KRISHNAGIRI, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶27

…APPELLANTS

¶28

(BY SRI. BHADRINATH R.,ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

SMT. R. SHANTHA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O LATE V. RANGANATHAN,

¶31

SRI. R. THYAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O LATE V RANGANATHAN,

¶32

SRI. R. NETHAJI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE V RANGANATHAN,

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶34

SRI. R. VIJAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O LATE V RANGANATHAN,

¶35

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.69, 3^RD E-CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, NANJAPPA LAYOUT,ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030.

¶36

M ARDHANARI

¶37

(SINCE DECEASED BY LRS)

¶38

SMT. MADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, D/O LATE ARDHANARI,

¶39

SRI. SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE ARDHANARI,

¶40

SRI SELVARAJ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE ARDHANARI,

¶41

SMT. PREMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O LATE ARDHANARI,

¶42

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO.12/14, DODDALAKSHMAIAH HOUSE, PATALAMMA STREET, ADIGODI POST, BENGALURU-560 030.

¶43

SRI K N CHANNARISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASA REDDY, R/AT NO.4, 5^TH CROSS, PATEL BALAPPA LAYOUT, KORAMANGALA ROAD,

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶46

ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030.

¶47

…RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SRI. V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R9 R1 TO R8 IS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 20/11/2024)

¶49

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.5957/2014 ON THE FILE OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE C/C. XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

¶50

IN RFA NO. 955/2024

¶51

BETWEEN:

¶52

SMT. KRISHNAVENI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O LATE M. RAJU @ MUNIRAJU,

¶53

SRI M GOPAL

¶54

(SINCE DECEASED BY LRS)

¶55

SMT. N.R SHOBHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O LATE M. GOPAL,

¶56

SMT. G BHAVANASREE AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, D/O LATE M. GOPAL,

¶57

SRI. PUSHPA SAI VARDHAN AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O LATE M. GOPAL,

¶58

SMT. THANMAY SHREE AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, D/O LATE GOPAL,

¶59

- 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶60

APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT NO.8, GOKULA NILAYA, BASAVANNA TEMPLE, BASAVANAGUDI STREET, ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030.

¶61

...APPELLANTS

¶62

(BY SRI. BHADRINATH R, ADVOCATE)

¶63

AND:

¶64

SMT. R. SHANTHA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O LATE V RANGANATHAN,

¶65

SRI. R. THYAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O LATE V RANGANATHAN,

¶66

SRI. R. NETHAJI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE V RANGANATHAN,

¶67

SRI. R VIJAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O LATE V RANGANATHAN,

¶68

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.69, 3^RD E-CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, NANJAPPA LAYOUT, ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030.

¶69

SRI. M ARDHANARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE MUGHI CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT NO.12/14, DODDALAKSHMAIAH HOUSE, PATALAMMA STREET, ADIGODI POST,

¶70

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶71

BENGALURU-560 030

¶72

...RESPONDENTS

¶73

(BY SRI. V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4 NOTICE TO R1 & R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶74

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.7311/2012 ON THE FILE OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE C/C. XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶75

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

¶76

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and

¶77

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶78

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶79

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶80

RFA No.956/2024 is filed challenging the judgment and

¶81

decree dated 16.03.2024 passed in O.S.No.5957/2014 on the

¶82

file of the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said suit was initiated by the plaintiffs against the defendants in respect of suit schedule property depicted therein. Accordingly, the Court having jurisdiction to deal with aforesaid original suit, rendered a judgment and decree. The

¶83

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶85

said judgment and decree is challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds.

¶86

Heard learned counsel, Sri Bhadrinath R., for the appellants and learned counsel, Sri V.F.Kumbar, for the caveator/respondent No.9.

¶87

In this appeal, the respective learned counsel for both the parties, have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating that the appellants and respondent No.9 have arrived at a settlement in terms of the compromise. It is stated that the parties herein have settled their disputes inter-se amongst themselves in view of which, the parties are entering into this compromise petition agreeing upon the following terms and conditions :

¶88

"I. It is submitted that, at the intervention of the elders, well- wishers, relatives and friends, the appellants and respondent No. 9 herein decided to settle the issues amicably to put a quietus to the litigation under the following terms and condition.

¶89

II. It is submitted that the facts of the case is narrated here-in- below for kind reference of this Hon'ble Court to pass a Judgment and Decree as per the compromise entered between the parties.

¶90

"1. It is Submitted that Smt.Krishnaveni, W/o. Late M.Raju, and her Children M.Gopal, Somashekar, M. Raghupathi, Smt. Yashoda, who are the plaintiffs in the trail

¶91

¶92

NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶93

court and appellants No. 1, 6, 7 & 8 herein, have filed the O.S.No.5957/2014 in the Court of XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru (CCH-30), against respondents/defendants for the relief of Declaration of ownership and other consequential reliefs against the respondents/defendants. After the demise of the 2^nd Plaintiff/M.Gopal his legal heirs Smt.G.Bhavanasree, Pushpa Sai Vardhan, Smt. Thanmayshree who are appellants No.3 to 5 legal represented of deceased Gopal. It is further submitted that, the Hon'ble Trail Court after completion of full fledge trail, dismissed the appellants suit. Hence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Hon'ble court.

¶94

2. It is undisputed that the deceased Narasappa, S/o.Channappa acquired Site No.2 carved out of Sy.No.69/2, situated at Adugodi Village, Begur Hobli Bengaluru South taluk, measuring East to West 40 feet North To South 30 feet through registered sale deed dated 16.01.1963. It is further submitted that, the said Narasappa in his life time bequeathed aforesaid property which is morefully described in suit schedule, in favour of Smt. Rajamma under registered Will deed dated 11.12.1970 vide Document No.90/70-71, Book-III, Volume No.3 at pages 205 to 207, registered in the office of Sub Registrar Gandhinagar, Bangalore City. After death of Narasappa, the said Smt. Rajamma is in the law full possession of the said property has become absolute owner and having right, title interest over the property.

¶95

3. It is submitted that, the appellants confirms that the said Smt. Rajamma sold the above property bifurcating into two portion, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 15 feet, Southern portion in favour of Sri. V. Ranganathan through registered Sale Deed, Vide Document No.1313/74-75, Book-1, Volume No.259, at pages 228-230, dated 29.07.1974, in the office of the Sub Registrar Bangalore and measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 15 feet, Northern portion in favour of respondent No.5/(M.Ardhanari) through registered Sale Deed, Vide Document No.1312/74-75, Book-I, Volume No.259, at pages 228-230, dated 29.07.1974, in the office of the Sub Registrar Bangalore.

¶96

4. It is submitted that,, the respondent No.5 in her life time she executes registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.9 herein vide registered sale deed dated 06.11.2013, Document No.BMH-1-06636-2013-14, stored in CD No. BMHD652, in the office of Sub-Registrar Bhommanahalli, Bengaluru and the respondent No.2 to 4 who are the legal heirs of Sri. V. Ranganathan have sold their portion in favour of respondent No.9 herein, vide registered

¶97

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶98

sale deed dated 22.07.2024, Document No.SHR- 1-23882024-25, in the office of Sub-registrar, Shanthinagar(Jayanagar) Bengaluru. After execution of the Sale Deed possession was handed over to this respondent No.9 and till today the respondent No.9 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶99

5. The Appellants hereby confirms that the respondent No.9 herein is the absolute owner of property bearing Site No.2 carved out of Sy.No.69/2, situated at Adugodi Village, Begur Hobli Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring East to West 40 feet North To South 30 feet as per aforesaid sale Deed & previously executed conveyance deed executed in favour of respondent No.1 to 8. Further, the Respondent No.9 herein is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same at present. The appellants further confirm that, they did not execute any deeds or created any kind of encumbrance created with respect to suit schedule property till date.

¶100

6. The Appellants confirm and admit that registered Will deed executed by the Narasappa in his life time bequeathed suit Schedule property, in favour of his wife Smt. Rajamma under registered Will deed dated 11.12.1970 vide Document No.90/70-71, Book-III, Volume No.3 at pages 205 to 207, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Gandhinagar, Bangalore City. After death of Narasappa, the said Smt. Rajamma become absolute owner, intern sold the above property bifurcating into two portion, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 15 feet, Southern portion in favour of one Sri.V.Ranganathan and measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 15 feet, Northern portion in favour of the respondent No.5 (M.Ardhanari). Subsequently, the respondent No.9 purchased two portion of the suit schedule property under two different sale deeds from respondent No.2 to 5. Hence, the respondent No.9 herein becomes absolute owner of the suit schedule property having right title interest over the property and he is peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶101

7. The Appellants confirm and admits that they did not possession any kind of right tile, interest over the suit schedule property.

¶102

8. It is submitted that at the intervention of the friends, well- wishers, elders and realities the appellants are requesting this respondent/defendant No.9 to reimburse the litigation expenses incurred in the above case. Even though the respondent No.9 doesn't have any liability towards the appellants to pay anything, due to intervention of the wellwishers, the respondent No.9 is hereby paying an amount of

¶103

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶104

Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the Appellants as litigation expenses. The details of payment mentioned as hereunder below.

¶105

Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) is paid by way of D.D.No. 200463, dated 13.11.2024 drawn on Bank of Baroda. Adugodi Branch, Bangalore-560030, in favour of Smt. Krishnaveni ie, appellant No.1 herein.

¶106

9. The Appellant No.1 receiving the above said amount as litigation expenses incurred towards the suit & Appeal and the appellant No.2 to 8 being the children and grandchildren of the appellant No.1 they have no objection to pay the aforesaid entire amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) to Smt. Krishnaveni/appellant No.1 herein and they also admitting the respondent No.9 herein is absolute owner and in possession of the schedule suit property.

¶107

10. The appellants hereby agreed that they don't have any manner of right, interest over the suit schedule property. i.e., bearing Site No.2 carved out of Sy. No.69/2, situated at Adugodi Village, Begur Hobli Bengaluru South taluk, measuring East to West 40 feet North To South 30 feet. The appellants are hereby undertake that they don't interfere with the enjoyment of said suit schedule property of the respondent No.9 herein or his representatives and the respondent No.9 being the absolute owner can deal with the said property. However the appellants will not interfere with the suit schedule property of the respondent No.9. The appellants herewith undertakes that they of their legal/representatives or their agents or any third parties claiming under or through them not to interfere with the possession of the suit Schedule property any manner in future.

¶108

11. The Appellants are hereby assures and undertakes to execute confirmation deed or any kind of deed and things to the satisfaction of the respondent No.9 in respect of the suit schedule property within three months from this compromise petition.

¶109

III. The parties have read, understood and are present before this Hon'ble Court with the present compromise petition and have consented to the terms set out hereinabove and the parties have arrived at the compromise by free will of all the signatories without any force, pressure, coercion of any kind and the instant compromise petition is also not collusive.

¶110

WHEREFORE , the parties above named respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to draw a decree

¶111

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶112

in terms of compromise petition and also record the temrs of the present compromise petition and accordingly the decree may be drawn as settled between the parties, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶113

SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶114

All that piece and parcel of the property bearingNo.2, situated at 4^th Cross Patel Balappa Layout, Adugodi, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, presently comes under B.B.M.P Ward No.147, having PID No. 67-94-2 & 67-94-3, measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South:30 feet in all measuring 1200 Square feet and bounded on:

¶115

EAST BY : Burial ground WEST BY : Road NORTH BY : Site No.1 SOUTH BY : Doraswamy House (Site No.3)"

¶116

These are the conditions agreed to between the appellants and respondent No.9 out of their free will and volition and there is no element of fraud, coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation or mistake. Further, both parties respectively submit that the present compromise is in the best interest of both the parties and it is also the only way to put an end to the long pending litigation and restore peace and harmony between the parties.

¶117

The appellants so also respondent No.9 and their respective counsel are present before the Court physically and have apprised the conditions stated in the compromise petition. Therefore, in their presence compromise petition is hereby accepted. Accordingly, RFA.No.956/2024 stands disposed of in

¶118

12 -

¶119

NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶120

terms of the compromise entered into between both the parties. Office is directed to draw the decree accordingly.

¶121

6. Court fee which is paid by the appellant to prefer

¶122

the present appeal, shall be refunded to the appellant No.1 on due identification.

¶123

RFA No.955/2024 is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2024 passed in O.S.No.7311/2012 on the file of the XXIX Additional City civil

¶124

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶125

Learned counsel, Sri Bhadrinath R, for the

¶126

appellants in RFA.No.955/2024 is present before the Court physically and submits that he has filed a memo seeking permission for withdrawal of this appeal.

¶127

9. Memo is taken on record.

¶128

10. Accordingly, RFA.No.955/2024 is dismissed as

¶129

withdrawn.

¶130

13 -

¶131

NC: 2024:KHC:47217-DB RFA No. 956 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 955 of 2024

¶132

In view of the disposal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory applications, if any, in these appeals shall stand disposed of.

¶133

Sd/(K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶134

JUDGE

¶135

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶136

KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Smt Krishnaveni v. Smt R Shantha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Krishnaveni v. Smt R Shantha

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

Dr S Bisalaiah Vs Shri Shivayogi C. Kalasad

Sri H K Divakara Vs Sri Narayana

Sri Abhishek Hegde a Vs Smt Megha Rani M

Shivamadhu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Jyhothikumar Vs Sri. H. N. Raghu

Smt. Thimmamma Vs Sri. Prakash