Sri. H v Chintala Reddy Vs Sri. H v Venkata Reddy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri. H v Chintala Reddy Vs Sri. H v Venkata Reddy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both appeals disposed of in terms of the parties' joint compromise applications under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. In RSA No.665/2019 the plaintiffs are recognised as absolute owners of Schedule A, B and C properties, with 1 acre 15 guntas of Sy.No.107/1 (Schedule A) going to Somasundar Reddy and the remaining 1 acre 12 guntas (Schedule B) retained by the plaintiffs. In RSA No.793/2019, Schedules A, B and C (Sy.No.107/1 - 1 acre 15 guntas; Sy.No.108 - 4 acres 21 guntas; Sy.No.110/1 - 14 acres 4 guntas) go to appellant Somasundar Reddy; Schedule D (10 acres in Sy.No.108) jointly to respondents 7-9; Schedule E (10 acres in Sy.No.108) to respondent 7; Schedule F (Items 1-9) jointly to respondents 1-5, with Items 1-9 going to respondents 1-7. Decree to be drawn accordingly.

Issue for consideration

RSA No.665/2019 - whether the judgment and decree in RA.No.32/2015, confirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit OS.No.9/1996 (declaration, injunction and possession), should be set aside. +2 more

Court's answer

In RSA No.665/2019 the compromise terms were recorded: the plaintiffs/appellants are considered absolute owners of the schedule properties A, B and C; 1 acre 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.107/1 (Schedule A) is given to Somasundar Reddy, appellant in the connected RSA No.793/2019, and the remaining 1 acre 12 guntas (Schedule B) is retained by the plaintiffs, who remain owners in possession of Schedule C and entitled to the relief sought in the suit.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the settlement between the parties, the IA (compromise application) in RSA No.665/2019 was allowed and the parties were permitted to compromise the dispute.

Key takeaways

RSA No.665/2019 stands disposed of in terms of the compromise.ratio¶185
In RSA No.793/2019 the joint compromise application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was allowed: Schedules A, B and C go to the appellant Somasundar Reddy; Schedule D goes jointly to respondents 7 to 9 (Keshava Reddy, Govinda Reddy and Byappa Reddy); Schedule E goes to respondent No.7 (Sanna Venkata Reddy).ratio¶196
Under the compromise in RSA No.793/2019, Schedule F properties go jointly to respondents 1 to 5, and Item Nos.1 to 9 of Schedule F go to respondents 1 to 7.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (K. Natarajan J), 10 February 2025 - RSA No.665 of 2019 (INJ) c/w RSA No.793 of 2019 (NC: 2025:KHC:6076). Connected regular second appeals under Section 100 CPC between branches of a family over agricultural lands in Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District: (i) RSA No.665/2019 by the legal representatives of H.V. Chintala Reddy, plaintiffs, challenging the confirmation in RA.No.32/2015 (25.01.2019) of the dismissal of their suit OS.No.9/1996 (28.01.2015) for declaration, injunction and possession; (ii) RSA No.793/2019 by Achamma (represented by adopted son/legal representative Somasundra Reddy) challenging the reversal in R.A.No.72/2012 (18.01.2019) of the decree in OS.No.289/1989 (22.06.2012) for declaration, possession, injunction and partition. Both appeals were disposed of in terms of joint compromise applications under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC: Schedule A (1 acre 15 guntas in Sy.No.107/1), Schedule B (4 acres 21 guntas in Sy.No.108) and Schedule C (14 acres 4 guntas in Sy.No.110/1) to Somasundar Reddy; Schedule D (10 acres in Sy.No.108) jointly to respondents 7-9; Schedule E (10 acres in Sy.No.108) to respondent 7; Schedule F Items 1-9 to respondents 1-5/1-7; the plaintiffs in RSA No.665/2019 recognised as absolute owners of Schedules A, B and C. Respondents 12-19 in RSA No.793/2019 were deleted. Decree directed to be drawn accordingly. No precedent was cited and no substantive issue of title was decided, the matters being settled by compromise.