Allowed

G L Vijayakumari v. Smt Leelamma @ Leelavathi

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2024RSA/536/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Regular Second Appeal No. 536 of 2021, the High Court of Karnataka disposed of the appeal by decreeing the suit based on the terms of a compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 and Section 151 CPC, which settled the partition dispute regarding the mother's share in suit properties.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise petition and a preliminary decree was directed to be drawn accordingly.

G L Vijayakumari Vs Smt Leelamma @ Leelavathi — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:14876 RSA No. 536 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 536 OF 2021 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

G L VIJAYAKUMARI

¶9

D/O LINGAPPA @ NINGAPPA

¶10

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶11

RESIDING AT GUNDLAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 132.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. SAMPATH BAPAT., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT LEELAMMA @ LEELAVATHI W/O NINGAPPA

¶16

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶18

RESIDING NEAR LAKSHMI TEMPLE D M PALYA, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶19

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶20

RESIDENT OF OPP KALIDASA HIGH SCHOOOL SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶21

SRI. NANJAPPA @ GARE NANJAPPA H/O LATE ANJINAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:14876 RSA No. 536 of 2021

¶24

RESIDING NEAR LAKSHMI TEMPLE D M PALYA, TUMAKUR - 572 101.

¶25

SMT. CHANDARAKALA D/O NANJAPPA W/O HONNARAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT WARD NO.1, D M PALYA SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶26

SMT. LAKSHMI N., D/O NANJAPPA W/O AVALAIAH K B AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE KOTTHAGERE HOBLI

¶27

KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU - 572 130.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 R4 AND R5; SRI. SHREEPADA RAJA G., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶30

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.10/2021 (OLD NO.115/2018) ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.07.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.619/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.

¶31

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14876 RSA No. 536 of 2021

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2018 passed in O.S.No.619/2007 on the file of V Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumakuru (hereinafter 'the Trial Court') which is confirmed by the common judgment and order dated 30.03.2021 passed in R.A.No.10/2021 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter 'the First Appellate Court').

¶35

A Compromise petition dated 10.04.2024 is filed under Order 23 Rule 3 R/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 which reads as under:

¶36

"1. The Appellant was the Plaintiff and Respondents were the Defendants before the Trial Court.

¶37

2. That Appellant/Plaintiff had filed O.S No. O.S. No.619/2007 on the file of V Additional Civil Judge & JMFC at Tumukuru seeking partition and separate possession of 14 Share in the Joint family property of her Maternal Grandfather Late Sri.Honnappa. Late Sri. Honnappa had four daughters and all of them are entitled to ¼

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14876 RSA No. 536 of 2021

¶39

Share. The said suit was decreed on 16.07.2018. The Respondents 1, 2, 4 & 5 preferred R.A. No.10/2021 (Old R.A No.115/2018) on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru. The said Regular Appeal was allowed on 30.03.2021 and the decree passed by the trial court was set aside and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2021 in R.A. No.10/2021 (Old R.A No.115/2018), the present Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the Plaintiff.

¶40

3. The 3rd Respondent, i.e., Husband of Late Smt. Anjinamma was impleaded as a party respondent since at the time of suit, his daughters were minors. It now transpired that Late Smt. Anjinamma had left behind a will dated 16.07.2021 under which her share is allotted equally to her daughers, Respondent No.4 and 5 herein.

¶41

4. That after the intervention of elders and wellwishers, the parties to the lis have amicably settled the dispute amongst themselves as per the terms mentioned hereinbelow:

¶42

i. That the Respondents admit the fact that the Appellant has got undivided share in the suit properties being the only legal heir of Late Smt.Malamma and as such legally entitled to ¼ Share in Suit Schedule Properties. (Approximately 19 Guntas of Land)

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14876 RSA No. 536 of 2021

¶44

ii. That the Appellant has agreed for the proposal of the Respondents to receive 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.30/5 bearing Khata Nos.52, 151, 155 and 162 more fully shown in Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties towards her claim over suit schedule properties. The property allotted in terms of the compromise is more fully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as Schedule 'A' Property.

¶45

iii. The Appellant agree to give up her right over Item No.2 and 3 of schedule property.

¶46

iv. The Respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5 are allotted Schedule 'B' Property to an extent of 1 acre 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.30/5 bearing Khata Nos.52, 151, 155 and 162

¶47

v. The Appellant or anybody claiming under her do not claim any right over the other properties except to the share allotted to the Appellant referred to above.

¶48

vi. The Respondents herein release their undivided right in respect of the property allotted to the Appellant which is shown as Schedule 'A' Property and as such they will not claim any right, title or interest in respect of the same.

¶49

vii. The Appellant is put in possession of her share allotted in terms of this compromise and entitled to the same as true owner.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:14876 RSA No. 536 of 2021

¶52

viii. That both the parties hereto submit that the above compromise is arrived out of the own will and desire of the parties hereto to put an end to the litigation and there has been no entered into between the parties at their own will without there being any undue influence or coercion.

¶53

Wherefore, the Appellant and the Respondents pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to decree the suit in terms of the above compromise petition and direct the registry to draw a preliminary decree in terms of the above compromise, in the interest of justice.

¶54

SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY

¶55

Property allotted to the Appellant/Plaintiff

¶56

All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No. 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.30/5 bearing Khata Nos.52, 151, 155 and 162 situated at Maralena Hally Village, Kasaba Hally Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk.

¶57

SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY

¶58

Property allotted to the Respondent No.1,2,4 & 5:

¶59

All that piece and parcel of 1 acre 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.30/5 bearing Khata Nos.52, 151, 155 and 162 situated at Maralena Hally Village, Kasaba Hally Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk out of which 20 guntas of land allotted to Neelamma @ Leelavathi. 20 guntas of land

¶60

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:14876 RSA No. 536 of 2021

¶61

allotted to Gangamma, the Respondent No.2, 21 guntas of land allotted to Chandrakala & Lakshmni."

¶62

Appellant Smt.G.L.Vijayakumari and Respondent No.1-Smt.Neelamma @ Leelavathi, respondent No.2Smt.Gagamma, respondent No.3-Nanjappa @ Gare Nanjappa, respondent No.4-Smt.Chandrkala and respondent No.5-Smt.Lakshmi.N are personally present before this Court. On a query by this Court it is clear that parties have understood the terms of the compromise entered into and there appears to be no term which is illegal.

¶63

The Court is satisfied with regard to the identity of

¶64

the parties who are present before this Court and duly identified by their respective counsel.

¶65

The terms of the compromise petition is read over

¶66

to the parties and they have confirmed the same. There is no clause or terms in the compromise which is contrary to the provisions of law and compromise petition is in accordance with law.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:14876 RSA No. 536 of 2021

¶69

Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise.

¶70

Draw decree accordingly.

¶71

In view of disposal of this appeal, all pending

¶72

applications are disposed of.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

G L Vijayakumari v. Smt Leelamma @ Leelavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G L Vijayakumari v. Smt Leelamma @ Leelavathi

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

Yashodamma Vs Gangadharaiah

Smt. Andal Vs Sri.B.D. Mahadevappa

Mrs. Swetha Thimmaiah Vs Nil

Mr. Suresh Kamath Vs Mr. Velarian Montherio

Smt. Bibijan Vs Hafizabi Dead by Lrs Rahim Sab

Mr. Mohammed Aslam Pasha Vs Mis. Zaibunnisa