Review petition sought exclusion of schedule property from a partition effected by compromise decree in a regular first appeal. The court held its earlier order had protected non-parties to the compromise and dismissed the review.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:49567 RP No. 7 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REVIEW PETITION NO. 7 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. RANGAPPA, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA R/O THIRUMENAHALLI VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:49567 RP No. 7 of 2024
W/O SRINIVAS MUDALIAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O PALAMNER TALUK, BYRATHAPPALLI MANDAL, TEERTHAM POST, CHITTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 678 101.
RESPONDENTS 2(A) TO 2(D) ARE RESIDING AT THAYALUR VILLAGE, MULABAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 136.
RESPONDENTS 2(E) TO 2(G) ARE RESIDING AT NO.6, MARAGONDANAHALLI, MAIN ROAD, NEAR BEML LAYOUT, T.C. PALYA, K.R.PURAM, BENGAURU - 560 036.
3(E). PAPANNA @ SUBRAMANI, S/O GOVINDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 3(A), 3(C) TO (E) ARE RESIDING AT THAYALUR VILLAGE, MULABAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 136. 4. KUPPAMMA, W/O KADAVALAPPA MUDALIAR, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
4(A). KANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O MURUGAPPA, ESIDING AT TATTAGUTTI, GUDINAGARA POST, GUDINAGARA TALUK, VELLUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 632 010.
4(B). SANNARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O ARUNACHALAM.
NC: 2024:KHC:49567 RP No. 7 of 2024
RESPONDENTS NO.4(A) TO (E) ARE RESIDING AT CHANDRA FURNITURES, NO.3, GURUKRUPA, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 078.
4(F). CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O ARUNACHALAM, RESIDING AT THAYALUR, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
4(G). HANSAMMA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O RANGAPPA RESIDING AT PARANDALA HALLI, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPETE TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 122.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, W/O JAGANNATH, RESIDING AT THAYALUR, MULABAGILU, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 136.
4(I) GANESHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O VISHWANATHAPPA, RESIDING AT PARANDALA HALLI, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 122.
4(J). RUKMANI, AGED ABUT 20 YEARS, W/O RANGAPPA, RESIDING AT PARANDALA HALLI,
NC: 2024:KHC:49567 RP No. 7 of 2024
KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563 122.
7(A). SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O KOATHAGOWDANOLA SRINIVAS @ V. SRINIVASAIAH, MAJOR IN AGE.
7(B). SRI. VIJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, S/O KOTHAGOWDANOLA SRINIVAS @ V. SRINIVASAIAH,
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF THIRUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANNASANDRA POST, MULABAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA 563 131.
RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 14 ARE R/O THIRUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA 563 131.
15(B). SRI. PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SRI. A.K. MUNISWAMY @ MUNISHAMI.
15(C). SRI. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O SRI. A.K. MUNISWAMY @ MUNISHAMI,
RESPONDENTS 15(A) TO (C) ARE R/AT THIRUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANNASANDRA POST, MULABAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA -563 131
NC: 2024:KHC:49567 RP No. 7 of 2024
S/O RAMAPPA, R/AT THIRUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANNASANDRA POST, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA -563 131
NC: 2024:KHC:49567 RP No. 7 of 2024
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA -563 131
RESPONDENTS NO.21 TO 24 ARE R/AT SURANAHALLI, KYASAMBAHALLI, KYASAMBAHALLI, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA -563 131
NC: 2024:KHC:49567 RP No. 7 of 2024
25(C). SMT. SHYLA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O SRI. NAGARAJ MUDALIAR. RESPONDENTS 25(A) TO 25(C) ARE R/AT TAYALUR VILLAGE, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT -563 136
…RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO 1 REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2023 PASSED IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 681/2004 (PAR) BY THIS HONBLE COURT BY EXCLUDING THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY FROM THE PARTITION EFFECTED IN TERMS OF THE COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
the revision petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:49567 RP No. 7 of 2024
complainant and the legal representatives of the 1st defendant.
Court has clarified that as per the Memo filed by the parties who are parties to the compromise, the parties who are the other defendants in the case are not affected by the compromise decree. For ready reference, Paragraph-7 of the Order of this Court is extracted as under :
"Para-7 : Since other defendants and their properties are out of purview of the present compromise petition and parties have filed a separate memo in that regard giving up their claim in respect of property held by other defendants, the following :
ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:49567 RP No. 7 of 2024
In view of the disposal of the appeals in terms of the compromise, all interim orders would merge with the compromise and parties are entitled to enjoy the property as per the compromise, in accordance with law.
Pending applications, if any, are consigned to record."
4. This Court has taken necessary precaution while
disposing of the appeal in protecting the interest of the parties who are not parties to the compromise petition. Therefore, the review petition would not survive for consideration on merits.
5. Therefore review petitioner cannot maintain the
review in view of the categorical observations made by this Court in Paragraph No.7.
NC: 2024:KHC:49567 RP No. 7 of 2024
pending IAs, if any, stands consigned to the records.
Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT:SNN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review petition lies against the order disposing the appeal on compromise when paragraph 7 expressly protected non-compromising defendants.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. K. RANGAPPA
CHINNAPPA (by legal representatives)
SRI. C. KRISHNAPPA (by legal representatives)
SMT. GOVINDAMMA (by legal representatives)
KUPPAMMA (by legal representatives)
OTHER RESPONDENTS NOS. 5 TO 25
V SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
