Disposed

Vijayendra S/O Pralhad Pujari v. Pralhad S/O Hanamanth Pujari

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2025RFA/100258/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal against dismissal of a partition suit was amicably settled between the appellants and respondent No.2, who paid Rs.5,00,000 and admitted alienations in favour of other respondents; the High Court accepted the lawful compromise and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed in terms of compromise petition; decree to be drawn accordingly.

Vijayendra S/O Pralhad Pujari Vs Pralhad S/O Hanamanth Pujari — Partition | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11236 RFA No. 100258 of 2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶6

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100258 OF 2018 (PAR/POS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VIJAYENDRA S/O. PRALHAD PUJARI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

¶9

SUYAYENDRA S/O. PRALHAD PUJARI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

¶10

RAGHAVENDRA S/O. PRALHAD PUJARI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

¶11

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMARB SHELAR MOHANKUMARB SHELARDate: 2025.09.04 11:39:11 +0530

¶12

SMT.VASUNDHARA W/O. PRALHAD PUJARI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O. GOTHE-587330, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

PRALHAD S/O. HANAMANTH PUJARI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE AND AGRICULTURE,

¶17

SHRISHAIL S/O. ALLAPPA MAIGUR, AGE:66 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11236 RFA No. 100258 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT.DANAMMA W/O BASAVARAJ HALLADMATH, AGE:36 YARS, OCC.HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶22

KALLANAGOUDA @ RAJENDRA S/O. DADASAHEB PATIL, AGE:54 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE,

¶23

SMT.LAXMIBAI W/O. SIDDAPPA BADIGER, AGE:49 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶24

PATTU S/O. CHANDSAHEB ATTAR, AGE:44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

¶25

SMT.RAJESHWARI W/O. MAHADEV TATAGAR, AGE:51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶26

SMT.BEBI W/O. KASIMSAB PINJAR @ NADAF, AGE:46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶27

SMT.HASEENA W/O. SALEEM PINJAR @ NADAF, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶28

KALLAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA NINGANUR, AGE:48 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE,

¶29

ALL ARE R/O. GOTHE-587330, TQ.JAMAKHANDI, DIST.BAGALKOTE.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI.GIRISH YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5 AND R7 TO R9; R1, R6 AND R10-NOTICE SERVED)

¶32

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC.,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.03.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.99/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶33

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

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11236 RFA No. 100258 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶39

The appellants and respondent No.2 are present before

¶40

the Court personally and they are identified by their respective counsel.

¶41

The appellants and respondent No.2 have filed a

¶42

compromise petition which reads as under:

¶43

“The Appellants & Respondent No. 2 submits as under;

¶44

1. The above appeal is directed against the Judgment & Decree dated 22.03.2018 passed in OS No. 99/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi.

¶45

2. The Appellants / Plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the Defendants / Respondents in OS No. 99/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi. Upon hearing parties to the suit, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.

¶46

3. It is submitted that, Appellant No. 4 is wife of Respondent No. 1 and Appellant No. 1 to 3 are their sons. The Suit Schedule "A" Properties were allotted the share of Respondent No. 1 in terms of family partition that took place on 10.08.1986 & 30.06.2002. The Respondent No. 1 has alienated the

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11236 RFA No. 100258 of 2018

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Suit Schedule "A" Properties in favour of other Respondents.

¶51

4. At the intervention of the elders, well-wishers, the Appellants & Respondent No. 2 have amicably settled the dispute on following terms;

¶52

a. In view of settlement arrived at between the parties, today the Respondent No. 2 has paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the Appellants in Cash towards the litigation expenses. The Appellant admit the receipt of the said amount towards their full and final settlement of the claim in respect of the Suit Schedule "A" Properties.

¶53

b. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the Appellants & Respondent No. 2 admits that the Respondent No. 2 is owner in possession of the land bearing RS No. 9/5 measuring 4 Acres situated at Gothe Village, Jamakhandi Taluk, Bagalkote District and the Appellants submit that, they have no right, title or interest over the same.

¶54

c. The Appellants submits that they have no right, title or interest over the Suit Schedule "A" Properties and admits said alienations in respect of the said lands in favour of other Respondents.

¶55

5. It is submitted that, in view of settlement arrived at between the Appellant & Respondent No. 2, the Appellants are admitting the title of the Respondents. Hence, the Respondent No. 1 & 3 to 10 have been not made as parties to the present compromise petition.

¶56

6. The Appellants and Respondent No. 2 submits that, the above compromise has been entered into between them without anybody's undue influence,

¶57

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11236 RFA No. 100258 of 2018

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

coercion, threat or force and the same is with free will and wish.

¶60

WHEREFORE, the Appellants and Respondent No. 2 most respectfully pray that, the Judgment & Decree dated 22.03.2018 passed in OS No. 99/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, may kindly be modified in terms of the above compromise, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶61

The contents of the compromise petition are read

¶62

over and explained to the parties in Kannada language, and they have accepted the terms and conditions of the compromise petition.

¶63

I have perused the contents of the compromise

¶64

petition.

¶65

The compromise petition is taken on record.

¶66

There is no legal impediment in accepting the

¶67

contents of the compromise petition, which are not against the public policy.

¶68

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in terms of

¶69

the compromise petition.

¶70

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11236 RFA No. 100258 of 2018

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

The office is directed to draw the decree, in terms of the compromise petition.

¶74

SD/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶75

NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1

Vijayendra S/O Pralhad Pujari v. Pralhad S/O Hanamanth Pujari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayendra S/O Pralhad Pujari v. Pralhad S/O Hanamanth Pujari

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

The Branch Manager Vs Madev Mallappa Bajjinnavar

The Branch Manager Vs Ravi S/O. Late Honnurappa

The Branch Manager Vs Nagaraj S/O. Late Huligappa

Khader Vali C S/O Chand Peer Vs the Waqf Officer

Sri.Yamanappa S/O Irappa Khangoudar Vs Smt.Shivaleela Lw/O Basappa Jakkappannavar

Sri. Devarapalli Sreedhar Vs the Deputy Commissioner