Partly allowed

Smt Durgamma @ Javanamma v. Smt Shivalingamma

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2024RSA/1123/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the regular second appeal in terms of a valid compromise between appellants and respondents, confirming appellants are absolute owners in possession of the schedule property upon payment of Rs. 3,20,000.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed to the extent of the compromise application; judgment and decree of lower courts modified to confirm appellants as absolute owners in possession; registry directed to draw new decree.

Smt Durgamma @ Javanamma Vs Smt Shivalingamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51575 RSA No. 1123 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1123 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT DURGAMMA @ JAVANAMMA, W/O LATE RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,

¶6

SRI NAGARAJU, S/O LATE RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O H. BASAVAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.

¶7

…APPELLANTS

¶8

[BY SRI KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶9

AND:

¶10

SMT. SHIVALINGAMMA, W/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O KEMPEGOWDANADODDI, SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKPURA TALUK, (BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT OLD) RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117.

¶11

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶12

SMT SIDDARAJAMMA, W/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O THOTAHALLI VILLAGE, SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKPURA TALUK, (BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT OLD) RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 117.

¶13

SMT GOWRAMMA NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51575 RSA No. 1123 of 2014

¶15

R/O LOKASARA VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK & DIST - 571 401.

¶16

SMT. CHANDRAMMA, W/O MAHADEVAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O NITTUR VILLAGE, HALAGUR HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA TALUK & DIST-571 430.

¶17

SMT. DODDAMMA, W/O NINGARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O DHANAGUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA TALUK & DIST-571 430.

¶18

SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA, W/O LATE RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O H BASAVAURA VILLAGE HALAGUR HOBLI,MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA TALUK & DIST-571 430.

¶19

SMT MALLAMMA, W/O LATE RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O H BASAVAURA VILLAGE HALAGUR HOBLI,MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA TALUK & DIST-571 430.

¶20

THE SECRETARY H BASAVAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH HALAGUR HOBLI, DELETED V/O DTD 13.12.2024 MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA -571 430.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

[BY SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7 (PH); V/O DATED 13.12.2024 NOTICE TO R8 IS DELETED & D/W]

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:51575 RSA No. 1123 of 2014

¶25

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 25.3.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.10/2007 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALAVALLI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 22.12.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.128/1997 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), MALAVALLI.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

Challenging impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC., Malavalli, in R.A.no.10/200, this appeal is filed.

¶30

Learned counsel for appellants has filed a memo dated 13.12.2024 seeking permission to dispense with notice to respondent no.8 on ground that he is a formal party and not a necessary party to compromise petition.

¶31

Memo is accepted. Appellant is permitted to delete name of respondent no.8.

¶32

Learned counsel for parties submitted that during pendency of appeal parties have entered into

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:51575 RSA No. 1123 of 2014

¶35

settlement with regard to subject matter of appeal in terms of para no.3 of compromise application, which reads as under:

¶36

"3. The appellants and respondents No.1 to 7 have mutually agreed between themselves, and the respondent No.8 is a gram panchayat and they are not a necessary party to the compromise petition and the parties further agree as follows:

¶37

(a) That in pursuance of the above compromise both the parties have agreed that the appellants are the absolute owners and in possession of the schedule property and they will be absolute owner of the suit property. (b) The appellants are paying a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-(Rupees Three lakh twenty thousand only) by way of cash to respondents.

¶38

(c) The respondents 1 to 7 have no objections to change the khata in the names of the appellants. The respondent No.1 to 7 admits that the appellants are absolute owner and in possession of suit schedule property and they have no claim over the suit schedule property past, present and future.

¶39

(d) The appellants and respondents have entered into this compromise petition from their free will and consent and there is no threat, coercion on either parties to do so.

¶40

(e) The contents of the compromise petition have been read over by their respective counsel to the appellants and respondents No.1 to 7 and all the parties have consented to the contents of this compromise petition.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:51575 RSA No. 1123 of 2014

¶43

(f) The appellants and respondents NO.1 to 7 have agreed that the comp0romise shall not be reopened nor challenged under any circumstances before any court of law or any other authorities.

¶44

(g) Both the parties are affixing their signature on this compromise petition. "

¶45

Parties are present and identified by their respective counsel.

¶46

On interaction, they stated that they have been explained terms of compromise and after understanding same, they have affirmed same out of their free will and volition without there being any threat, coercion or undue influence from anybody. As per para no.3(b) of compromise petition, appellants have paid Rs.3,20,000/- to respondents by way of cash and respondents have acknowledged receipt of same.

¶47

I have perused terms of compromise application filed under Section XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. Same are found to be lawful.

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51575 RSA No. 1123 of 2014

¶49

Compromise application is taken on record. Appeal is allowed to extent and in terms of compromise application, judgment and decree of both Courts are modified accordingly.

¶50

Registry to draw decree incorporating terms of compromise.

¶51

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶52

PSG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Smt Durgamma @ Javanamma v. Smt Shivalingamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Durgamma @ Javanamma v. Smt Shivalingamma

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

Smt Ningamma Vs C L Shankare Gowda

Sri P K Shantharaju Vs Sri P R Shivananda

Smt. Ganapu Hengsu Vs Smt. Kamala Devadagithi

Smt Geetha J Malli Vs Cv Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Shobha Vs Sri Munivenkatappa

Sri D B Shankarappa Vs Sri D S Ravi Kumar