Disposed

Smt. Manjulamma v. Smt. Subadramma

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2024RSA/179/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal against concurrent dismissal of a suit for declaration and injunction was settled by compromise during pendency. The court recorded the lawful settlement allotting specified portions of the disputed lands to each side, allowed the appeal to that extent, modified both decrees, and directed drawing of a decree.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in terms of compromise; judgments and decrees of both courts modified accordingly; decree to be drawn incorporating compromise terms.

Smt. Manjulamma Vs Smt. Subadramma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51738 RSA No. 179 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.179 OF 2011 (DEC/INJ)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT. MANJULAMMA, W/O LATE K.H. NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT KEMBALU, BEGUR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶6

SRI K.H. NATARAJ, S/O HONNEGOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.

¶7

2(a) K.N.GIREESHA, S/O LATE K.H. NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT KAMBAL POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶8

2(b) SMT. HONNALAKSHMI, D/O LATE K.H. NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶9

Digitally signed by R/AT NADAHALLI POST, ANUSHA V CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI,

¶10

Location: High HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶11

Court Of Karnataka

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

[BY SRI Ko. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 (a & b) (PH)]

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. SUBADRAMMA, W/O SRI SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶16

SRI SATHISHA, S/O SRI SIDDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:51738 RSA No. 179 of 2011

¶19

SRI ANNADANI GOWDA, S/O SRI SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ALL R/AT KEMBALU, BHAGUR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 (PH); V/O/DTD 25.05.2022 APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST R2)

¶22

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.10.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.102/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) CHANNARAYAPATNA.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Challenging judgment and decree dated 18.10.2010 passed by Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna, in R.A.no.1/2007 and judgment and decree dated 29.11.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Channarayapatna, in O.S.no.102/2002, this appeal is filed.

¶26

Learned counsel for parties submitted, suit for declaration, injunction and for cancellation of deed etc. came to be dismissed and appeal filed their against was also dismissed. However, during pendency of this appeal, parties have agreed

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:51738 RSA No. 179 of 2011

¶29

to settle their dispute as per terms incorporated in

¶30

memorandum of compromise petition filed today.

¶31

Parties are present and are identified by their

¶32

respective counsel.

¶33

On interaction, parties have 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.

¶34

Terms of compromise petition which is appended with sketch reads as follows:

¶35

"1. The appellants have filed the above Regular Second Appeal prays this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for records in O.S.No.102/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Channarayapatna and in R.A.No.1/2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna, peruse the same and allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2010 passed in R.A.No.1/2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2006, in O.S.No.102/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Channarayapatna and decree the suit as prayed for as sought in the above appeal.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:51738 RSA No. 179 of 2011

¶38

2. At the intervention from the well wishers, friends and elders of both the appellants and respondents are come forward to settle the above dispute between them amicably in respect of the schedule properties in the following manner:-

¶39

TOTAL DISPUTED SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

¶40

Properties situated at Kembalu Village, Begur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk.

¶41

1. Sy.No.138/6, measuring 1.27 guntas, as per the sketch Kembalu Village, Begur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, bounded on the East: Road, West: Shivanna and Buddegowda's land, South: Road, North: Lands of Shivanna and Puttaswamy.

¶42

2. 0.33 guntas wet land in Sy.No.155, Kembalu Village, Begur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, bounded on the East: Garden Land of Gangadhara, West: Garden land of Manjanna, South: Garden land of Amasegowda, North: Land of Nanjamarigowda.

¶43

3. 0.04 guntas of land (Dry Land) containing a Mangaluru Tiled House in Sy.No.315/6, Kembalu Village, Begur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, bounded on the East: Land of Gangadharappa, West: Road, South: House of Nagaraja; North: House of Rangegowda.

¶44

3. The compromise petition entered between the parties is out of their will and consent, there is no any coercion, fraud or undue influence in entering this compromise petition by the parties. Further the parties having been understood the contents of this compromise petition have signed this compromise petition on this day out of their own will and volution.

¶45

Wherefore, the appellants and Respondents respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:51738 RSA No. 179 of 2011

¶48

record this compromise petition and dispose the of the appeal in terms of this compromise petition and as per the sketch direct the jurisdictional Tahsildar, Channarayapatna to register the Katha in terms of the compromise, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶49

PROPERTY ALLOTTTED IN FAVOUR OF FIRST APPELLANT/SMT.MANJULAΜΜΑ.

¶50

1) In respect of Sy.138/6, allotted to Smt.Manjulamma measuring 0.35 guntas, out of 1 acre 27 guntas, situated at Kembalu Village, Begur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, bounded on the:-

¶51

East by : Road,

¶52

West by : Property belongs to Shivanna;

¶53

North by : Property belongs to Krishnamurthy, Dharmegowda, Dananjaiah.

¶54

South by: Remaining measurement of the same Survey Number.

¶55

2) In respect of House in Sy.No.315/6, measuring 0.04 guntas, Kembalu Village, Begur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk. containing a Mangaluru Tiled House allotted to Smt. Manjulamma/first appellant, bounded on the:-

¶56

East by : Land of Gangadharappa,

¶57

West by : Road;

¶58

North by : House of Rangegowda,

¶59

South by: House of Nagaraja.

¶60

PROPERTY ALLOTTED TO (1) Smt. SUBADRAMMA, (2) Sri. SATHISHA, (3) SRI.ANNADANI GOWDA/ RESPONDENTS No.1, 2 and 3.

¶61

1) In respect of Sy.No.138/6, allotted to Respondents No.1 to 3 measuring 0.32 guntas, out of 1 acre 27 guntas, situated at Kembalu

¶62

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51738 RSA No. 179 of 2011

¶63

Village, Begur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, bounded on the:-

¶64

East by : Road, West by : Property belongs to Shivanna; North by : Remaining property belongs to Manjulamma/Appellant.

¶65

South by: Property belongs to Thimmegowda.

¶66

2) In respect of Sy.No.155, totally measuring 0.33 guntas, situated at Kembalu Village, Begur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk.allotted to Respondents No.1 to 3, bounded on the :-

¶67

East : Garden Land of Gangadhara, West : Garden land of Manjanna, South : Garden land of Amasegowda, North : Land of Nanjamarigowda.

¶68

I have perused terms of settlement. Same appear

¶69

to be lawful.

¶70

Hence, compromise petition is taken on record.

¶71

Appeal is allowed to extent and in terms of compromise petition, judgment and decree of both Courts are modified accordingly.

¶72

Registry to draw decree incorporating terms of compromise petition.

¶73

In view of above, Misc.Civil.no.1485/2011 is dismissed as unnecessary.

¶74

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:51738 RSA No. 179 of 2011

¶76

Parties would be at liberty to report settlement to

¶77

revenue authorities and seek for mutation of their names

¶78

accordingly.

¶79

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶80

GRD

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Smt. Manjulamma v. Smt. Subadramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manjulamma v. Smt. Subadramma

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 Durgamma @ Javanamma Vs Smt Shivalingamma

Smt Geetha J Malli Vs Cv Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Shobha Vs Sri Munivenkatappa

C Rajashekar Vs Basavaraju

P. R. Mukhesh Kumar Vs K. N. Rama Murthy

Sri. S.D. Marigowda Vs Sri. Krishnegowda