Disposed

G S Harirao v. G S Janardhanarao

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024RSA/140/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title under a registered Will and injunction was decreed by trial court but reversed on first appeal. During this second appeal, parties settled: respondent acknowledged appellants' joint absolute ownership, and appellants paid Rs.2,00,000. Compromise accepted; appeal allowed, first appellate decree modified.

What did the court decide?

Compromise petition accepted; appeal allowed in terms of settlement; first appellate court's decree modified per compromise terms.

G S Harirao Vs G S Janardhanarao — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50391 RSA No. 140 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

G S HARIRAO S/O LATE GOVINDA RAO AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE STREET KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶9

a) PUSHPA BAI W/O LATE G.S. HARIRAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶10

b) K. H. NARAYANA RAO S/O LATE G.S. HARIRAO AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶12

c) K. H. HEMANTH KUMAR S/O LATE G.S. HARIRAO AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶13

ALL THE ABOVE ARE RESIDING AT "ANUGRAHA NILAYA", 7^TH CROSS, NETHRAVATHI ROAD, ANDANAIAH EXTENSION, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

[BY SMT. VAISHNAVI N. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶16

AND:

¶17

G S JANARDHANARAO S/O LATE GOVINDA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE STREET,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:50391 RSA No. 140 of 2014

¶20

KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

[BY SRI. SAGAR B.B, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶23

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 12.11.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.34/2008 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMKUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.75/2006 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), KUNIGAL.

¶24

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal by plaintiff challenging judgment and decree dated 12.11.2013 passed by III Additional District Judge, Tumkuru, in R.A.no.34/2008.

¶27

It was submitted that suit was filed by Sri G.S.Harirao - plaintiff for declaration of his absolute right under registered Will dated 07.11.2003 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. Same was decreed by trial Court but reversed by first appellate Court against which this appeal was filed.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:50391 RSA No. 140 of 2014

¶30

It was submitted that during pendency of appeal,

¶31

parties have settled matter as per following terms:

¶32

"5. The parties have held extensive discussions to resolve the dispute amicably at the intervention of their elders, wellwishers and their respective counsels. The parties have agreed to resolve the disputes amicably and have arrived at a settlement of this matter on the following terms:

¶33

a. The Respondent hereby agrees to the title of the Appellant over the Schedule Property. As such, Respondent confirms that the legal representatives of the deceased Appellant (being Appellant 1 (a) 1(c)) are the joint and absolute owners of the Schedule Property.

¶34

b. Parties agree that in the event of this Schedule Property being sold to any third party upon execution of this compromise petition, the Respondent hereby agrees that he shall have no objection to the Appellant Nos. 1(a) 1(c) executing the sale deed of the Schedule Property and further affirms that he and his family members shall join the execution of such sale deed as confirming parties or as consenting witnesses, as the case maybe.

¶35

c. The Appellants agree that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) has been paid to the Respondent towards this compromise. The Appellant has paid Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of Cash to the Respondent and he has remitted Rs. 1,00,000/- through RTGS to the account of Respondent as on the date of execution of the compromise. Therefore, in all, Rs. 2,00,000/- has been paid to the Respondent by the Appellants.

¶36

d. In view of this compromise, the Respondent agrees that neither the

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50391 RSA No. 140 of 2014

¶38

Respondent nor anyone claiming through or under him shall have any manner of right, title, interest or share over the Schedule Property in any manner whatsoever, on and from the date of entering into this compromise petition. The Respondent further undertakes not to make any fresh claim or initiate any legal or revenue or judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings against the Appellants or anyone claiming through or under them in any manner whatsoever, in respect of the Schedule Property or any part thereof.

¶39

6. It is mutually agreed between the parties that each of the parties shall co-operate with each other to give effect to the terms of this Compromise Petition. If any of the parties fail to perform their respective obligations under this Compromise Petition, the aggrieved party/ies may seek to execute this compromise petition before the appropriate courts.

¶40

7. The parties further state that there has been no collusion or force, coercion, fraud or any undue influence in filing the above petition and entering into this compromise. The parties also confirm that the instant compromise petition shall be a full and final settlement of all the claims and disputes that existed between the parties in respect of the Schedule Property."

¶41

Parties are present and identified by their counsel.

¶42

On interaction, they submit that terms of compromise have been explained to them and after understanding same, they have entered into compromise without any threat, coercion or inducement from anyone. Respondent has stated amount

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:50391 RSA No. 140 of 2014

¶45

mentioned in compromise petition is received as stated in

¶46

para 5(c).

¶47

I have perused terms of settlement, they are lawful. Compromise petition is taken on record. Hence, following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) Compromise petition is accepted.

¶50

(ii) Appeal is allowed to extent and in terms of

¶51

compromise petition;

¶52

(iii) Judgment and decree dated 12.11.2013 passed by III Additional District Judge, Tumkur, in R.A.no.34/2008 stands modified ;

¶53

(iv) Registry to draw decree incorporating terms of compromise.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

G S Harirao v. G S Janardhanarao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G S Harirao v. G S Janardhanarao

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

Parvathamma Vs Venkatarama

Byrappa Vs Avalappa

Sri T Keshava Shetty Vs Sri B Raghuram Shetty

Smt Tharamma Vs Mohammed Ummer Sab

Abdul Khader Vs Smt. Arathi Vishwanath

Smt. Rangamma Vs Smt. Bhagyamma