Dismissed

Sri. Doddamuniyappa Since Deceased by His Lrs v. Smt. Munithayamma

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2026RFA/79/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular First Appeal by an unsuccessful plaintiff challenging dismissal of his suit for declaration of ownership and cancellation of a compromise decree in O.S.No.1036/2007. The court found that the plaintiff had executed a relinquishment agreement during the suit's pendency after receiving Rs.31 lakhs, divesting him of title and locus standi.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Doddamuniyappa Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs Smt. Munithayamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. DODDAMUNIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶9

SRI. T.D. NARYANASWAMY S/O SRI. DODDAMUNIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

¶10

SMT.NAGAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶11

SRI. N. RAMESH S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BOTH ARE R/AT S. THOLOHALLI VILLAGE YELURU POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA DEVANAHALLI -562110.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE .N, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI. MALLESHA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs

¶22

SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O LATE MALLESHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶23

SMT. MOUNIKA D/O LATE MALLESHA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶24

BOTH ARE R/AT 1^ST MAIN DABASPETE ROAD BEHIND KONGODIYAPPA COLLEGE DODDABALLAPURA TOWN BENGALURU-561203.

¶25

SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶26

SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶27

SMT. RAJAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶28

SMT. NANJAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶29

SMT. SAROJAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶30

SMT. ANANDAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶35

SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MADDURIGA @ MADDURAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

¶36

SMT. DODDAKKAYAMMA D/O LATE MADDURGIA @ MADDURAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

¶37

SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE GANGAPPA AND MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶38

SRI. RAVI S/O LATE GANGAPPA AND MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶39

SMT.NARAYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶40

R3 TO R13 ARE R/AT S.THOLOHALLI VILLAGE YELURU POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶41

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O VEERAJAPPA D/O DODDAKKAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU-562129.

¶42

SRI. MUNIKRISHNA S/O MUNIYAPPA AND LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

R/AT YANGUNTE VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE-562129.

¶47

SMT. INDRAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY S.M. D/O T.D. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT KURABARA PET, SULEBALE HOSAKOTE-562129

¶48

…RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R10; SRI. DILIP KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R16; V/O DATED 21.03.2024 NOTICE TO R1 TO R9 IS DISPENSED WITH; R14 AND R15 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 26.09.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R11 TO R13 HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶50

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO.1185/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

¶51

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

¶52

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶53

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶54

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff

¶55

assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.1185/2007 whereby plaintiff's suit seeking relief of

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

declaration of ownership and also cancellation of the decree passed in O.S.No.1036/2007 is dismissed.

¶60

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶61

The facts of the case are as under:

¶62

Plaintiff in the suit specifically asserted that defendant Nos. 1 to 9 are the wife and children of one Patel Chikkamuniyappa, younger brother of original plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 10 and 11 are the erstwhile owners of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff is asserting title on the basis of the partnership deed dated 18.9.1984. Plaintiff asserts that in a family partition, the present suit schedule property was item No.5 and the same was allotted to plaintiff's share.

¶63

Plaintiff also traces origin of this land as a Jodi Inam Land, which was under cultivation of plaintiff's vendor. Plaintiff has pleaded that even before re-grant of suit schedule property, the suit land was conveyed by the

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

ancestor of defendant Nos. 11 and 12 in favour of Chikkamuniyappa, while Chikkamuniyappa purchased 1.10 acres from the father of defendant Nos. 11 and 12 Mudduriga and Chikkamudduriga. The remaining extent was also purchased by Chikkamuniyappa from Chikkasonnamma to an extent of one acre under registered sale deed dated 6.8.1962. Chikkasonnamma had purchased one acre from the other two branches of the grantee's family i.e. (defendant Nos. 10 and 11).

¶68

The present suit is filed primarily aggrieved by the compromise decree entered into between defendant Nos. 1 to 9, who are the legal heirs of Patel Chikkamuniyappa and defendant Nos. 10 and 11 in O.S.1036/2007. Plaintiff alleges that suit property was allotted to his share in the family partition effected in 1984 and therefore, it is the collusive compromise decree, which is now challenged in the present suit.

¶69

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Defendant Nos. 10 and 11, who are the

¶73

contesting defendants, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Justifying the compromise entered into between defendant Nos. 1 to

¶74

9 and 10 and 11, the defendant Nos. 10 and 11 asserted that there was a subsequent agreement between plaintiff and defendant Nos. 10 and 11 and in terms of the agreement, plaintiff has given up his right by receiving a sum of Rs.31 Lakhs and deed of relinquishment is executed on 24.12.2007. On these set of grounds, defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶75

The trial Court on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence and adverting to Ex.D9(a), which is the agreement dated 24.12.2007, proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground that plaintiff having received a sum of Rs.31 Lakhs is estopped from claiming ownership, consequently, the suit is dismissed.

¶76

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

The matter was extensively heard by this Court. Though the core dispute revolves around a narrow compass, in view of complexity of facts, the counsel on record were called upon to prepare a flow chart and a brief synopsis. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has furnished the flow chart and detailed synopsis. The learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos. 10 and 11 has also filed a detailed synopsis.

¶80

Learned counsel appearing for plaintiff No.1(a)(ii) has also addressed his arguments and has tried to persuade this Court to defer the hearing of the appeal on the premise that the suit is pending and any finding that would be recorded by this Court would have an adverse effect on Respondent No.16 in the pending suit.

¶81

Having heard the learned counsel on record,

¶82

this Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the material on record. This Court has meticulously examined the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence.

¶83

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

The following points would arise for

¶87

consideration:

¶88

"(i) Whether plaintiff has lost locus in

¶89

questioning the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.1036/2007 in view of agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant Nos. 10 and 11 and the consequent relinquishment deed executed by plaintiff on 24.12.2007 evidenced at Ex.D9(a)?

¶90

(ii) Whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that defendant Nos. 10 and 11 have succeeded in substantiating that plaintiff has lost subsisting right and title, if any, pursuant to execution of relinquishment deed dated 24.12.2007?

¶91

(iii) What order?"

¶92

10 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

Finding on Point Nos.(i and ii):

¶96

Before this Court delves into the matter, this

¶97

Court deems it fit to cull out the flow chart furnished by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, which is extracted as

¶98

under:

¶99

Sy. No. 8 total measuring 5 Acre 13 Guntas Inam Grant

¶100

2A - 27G to the family of Muddiriga S/O Motappa
Motappa
Muddiriga Chikkamudiriga Nallappa Muniga
Son Defendant - 10
1 Acre 10 Guntas 1 Acre
Chikkasonnamma
Sale Deed No.815/719 Dtd:14.06.1961
(Sale deed: 829/1694/21-9-61) 1 Acre
Chikkamuniyappa S/o Patel Minnisamappa (Sale deed: 813/1194/Dtd:6-8-1962)
Boundaries
E: Cart track E: Gomala
W: Gomala W: Gomala
N: Your property (i.e. Patel Munishamappa) N: Patel Munishamappa
S: Byrappa S: Byrappa
Total 2 Acres - 10 Guntas
In the partition among the family of Patel Munisamappa
Doddamuniyappa Chikkamuniyappa Siddappa Marishamappa Mariyappa
In the partition 18-9-1984 among more than 40 items of property Sy.no. 8 measuring
2 Acres was allotted to Doddamuniyappa i.e. 'A' schedule

¶101

11 -

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

2A-26G to the family of Poojappa s/o Munivenkatappa Poojappa Mudarappa S/o Poojappa Sale deed: 460/6162/dtd 23-5-1961 Sale deed:534/61-62 dtd:29-5-1961 2A 30G Byrappa S/o Bachanna 2A-30G Munivenkatappa sale deed: 1396/882/27-8-1962 M. Srinivas S/o Munivenkatappa 2A-27G T.B Muniegowda S/o Byrappa Sale Deed:2471/5-2-1997

¶105

The material on record indicates that Survey No.8 totally measuring 5.13 acres was admittedly an inam land. The entire extent was held by two distinct and independent branches, namely, one branch of Mudduriga and the other of Poojappa. The suit schedule property indisputably traces

¶106

its origin to the branch of Mudduriga. The flow chart placed on record demonstrates that Mudduriga and Chikkamudduriga jointly conveyed an extent of 1.10 acres in favour of the plaintiff’s brother, Chikkamuniyappa s/o Patel Munishamappa. Further, Nallappa and Muniga alienated one acre in favour of Chikkasamappa, who in turn conveyed the same to Chikkamuniyappa. Thus,

¶107

12 -

¶108

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

cumulatively, Chikkamuniyappa acquired 2.10 acres in

¶111

Survey No.8 from the Mudduriga branch.

¶112

It is also borne out from the records that the original grantees instituted a suit in O.S.No.1036/2007 seeking declaration and consequential injunction. In the said proceedings, defendants No.1 to 9, who are none other than the wife and children of Chikkamuniyappa, entered into a compromise admitting the title of defendants No.10 and 11. The present plaintiff calls in question the said compromise decree contending that though the property stood in the name of his brother Chikkamuniyappa, it had been thrown into the common hotchpotch of the joint family and, under a prior partition evidenced by deed dated 06.08.1962 (Ex.P14), the suit property had fallen to his share. On the strength of the said partition deed, the plaintiff asserts an independent right and seeks to nullify the compromise entered into by the legal representatives of his brother.

¶113

13 -

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

Without delving into the admissibility or

¶117

evidentiary value of Ex.P14 at this stage, this Court finds that the subsequent agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendants No.10 and 11, marked as Ex.D9(a), assumes considerable significance. Contrary to the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiff now seeks to contend that the said agreement relates to the southern portion of Survey No.8, which admittedly belonged to the branch of Poojappa. The records reveal that the Poojappa family had conveyed an extent of 2.30 acres to one Byrappa under sale deeds dated 23.05.1961 and 29.05.1961; Byrappa in turn sold the property to Munivenkatappa under a registered sale deed dated 27.08.1962; and thereafter Munivenkatappa conveyed the same to T.B. Muniegowda under registered sale deed dated 05.02.1997. The attempt to segregate the subject matter at this stage appears to be an afterthought.

¶118

For the first time before this Court, the plaintiff, while admitting receipt of Rs.31,00,000/-, has sought to

¶119

14 -

¶120

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

explain that the said amount was paid towards vacating and handing over possession of the southern portion of Survey No.8. In order to test the veracity of this contention, it becomes necessary to advert to the foundational pleadings in the plaint so as to ascertain the true subject matter of the suit.

¶123

A plain reading of paragraphs 4 to 8 of the plaint unmistakably aligns with the flow chart relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The averments clearly disclose that the property which forms the subject matter of the present suit, as well as O.S.No.1036/2007, pertains to the land held by the Mudduriga branch and not to the southern portion allegedly traceable to Poojappa’s branch. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraphs 4 to 8 of the plaint, which read as under:

¶124

"4. The plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property was originally a jodi Inam land which was cultivated by Doddamota and his children Madduriga,

¶125

15 -

¶126

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

Nallappa and Chikkamaduriga @ Kurloonu and Munishami. Due to the introduction of Village Office Abolition Act, all the lands attached the village office were came to be vested with the Government. In the meantime Doddamota had expired. However even before re-grant of the said land on 25-04-1962, the 2^nd son Nallappa and Muniyappa son of Kurlappa sold the suit schedule property by way of registered sale deed dated 10-061961 in favour of one Chikkasonnamma wife of Bachanna. The said sale deed was witnessed by Madduriga, as a witness to the said sale deed.

¶129

5. The plaintiff submits that the said Chikkasonnamma wife of Bachanna in turn sold the schedule property in favour of Patel Chikkamuniyappa son of Patel Munishamappa by way of registered sale deed dated 06-08-1962. Further on 21/09/1961 one Maddurigha and Chikkamadhurigha sold one acre ten guntas of land to Patel Chikkamuniyappa. As such the schedule property became the asset of joint family properties of Patel Munishamappa. Pursuant to the said sale deed the name of Patel Chikkamuniyappa came to be mutated in revenue records and his name was also entered in the RTC which is still being continued even today. As such from the date of sale of the suit schedule property in favour of Patel Chikkamuniyappa, they are in possession of the same.

¶130

6. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff and Patel Chikkamuniyappa and other three brothers got partitioned all the joint family properties subsequently on 18-09-

¶131

16 -

¶132

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

1984. As already stated above the schedule property has fallen to the share of plaintiff. However the revenue entries continued in the name of Patel Chikkamuniyappa.

¶135

7. The plaintiff submits that the when such being the case after the death of Patel Chikkamuniyappa without the knowledge of the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 9 in collusion with defendants 10 & 11 instituted a proxy litigation before this Hon'ble court in O.S.No.1036/2007. In the said suit the defendants 1 to 9 herein where defendants there. This Hon'ble court issued notice to the said defendants and fixed the next date of hearing as 0301-2008. Even before the hearing date the suit was advanced on 12-11-2007 and a compromise petition was filed with an understanding to give up the claim of the defendants 1 to 9 in favour of defendants 10 & 11 by way of declaration. In fact neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants in the said suit and any right over the schedule property. Since it was collusive suit there was no oppose from anybody and they cleverly managed to mislead this Hon'ble court in getting a compromise decree.

¶136

8. The plaintiff submits that by executing the sale deed on 10-06-1961 by one Sri. Naliappa and Muniyappa in favour of Chikkasonnamma wife of Munishamappa, the plaintiff as well as their father lost the possession over the schedule property. Subsequently the said Chikkasonnamma sold the same in favour of Chikkamuniyappa on 06-08-1962 and from the said date Chikkamuniyappa and his family members including this

¶137

17 -

¶138

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶139

HC-KAR

¶140

plaintiff were in possession of the schedule property. Thereafter by way of family partition on 18-09-1984, the schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff and was put in to possession by other family members of the plaintiff. Ever since from the said date the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property continuously adversely and openly cultivating the lands in question to the knowledge of the defendants and the predecessors."

¶141

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶142

The schedule of the plaint would further clinch

¶143

the controversy in regard to the identity of the property. Therefore, this Court deems it to fit extract the schedule, which reads as under:

¶144

"SCHEDULE

¶145

All that piece and parcel of the agricultural property bearing No.8, situated at Shothriya Thillohalli village, Channarayaptna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, measuring 2 acres bounded on the:

¶146

East by	:	Govt. Road;
West by	:	Land in Sy.No.37
North by	:	Land of Late. Chikkamuniyappa & now Kantharaju;
South by	:	Land of T.B.Munnegowda; "

¶147

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶148

18 -

¶149

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶150

HC-KAR

¶151

On a careful reading of the entire plaint

¶152

averments, coupled with a meticulous examination of the schedule appended to the plaint, this Court finds that there is absolutely no ambiguity with regard to the identity and description of the suit schedule property. The boundaries are clearly set out and the property is specifically identifiable on all four sides. In particular, the plaintiff has, in unequivocal and categorical terms, admitted that the southern boundary of the suit schedule property is the land held by T.B. Muniegowda. This admission is not casual or inferential, but forms part of the admitted description in the schedule itself. Therefore, the plaintiff’s own pleadings conclusively establish that the suit property lies to the north of the land owned by T.B. Muniegowda and pertains to the branch of Mudduriga. In light of such a clear admission, the subsequent attempt to contend that the transaction evidenced under Ex.D9(a) relates to the southern portion of Survey No.8 assumes significance and requires strict scrutiny.

¶153

19 -

¶154

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶155

HC-KAR

¶156

In the backdrop of these material aspects, this

¶157

Court has also examined the terms of settlement entered into between the plaintiff and defendants No.10 and 11, which is evidenced by Ex.D9(a). The said document is not a peripheral or inconsequential piece of evidence; rather, it has a direct bearing on the controversy at hand. The recitals contained therein disclose the nature of the dispute, the identity of the property in question, and the consideration agreed upon between the parties. The schedule annexed to Ex.D9(a), when read in conjunction with the plaint schedule, becomes crucial in determining whether the plaintiff’s present stand is consistent with his earlier admissions and contractual obligations. In order to appreciate the true purport of the agreement, the intention of the parties, and the extent of the property covered under the settlement, it is necessary to extract the relevant recitals and the schedule appended thereto. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce

¶158

20 -

¶159

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶160

HC-KAR

¶161

the relevant portion of the recital and the schedule, which

¶162

read as under:

¶163

" ಈ�ರುವ�� ಸದ� ಸ�ತು� �ಮ� �ೆಸ��ೆ �ಾ�ೆ , ಪಹ� , ಮು��ೇಶ� ವ�ೈ ೆ!ಾ�ರುವ"ದ�ಂದ $ಾನೂ�ನಂ�ೆ ಸದ� ಸ�'�ನ ಸಂಪ(ಣ +ಾರಸು,ಾರರು ಹಕು.,ಾರರು �ೕ+ೇ ಆ�ರು'�ೕ�* . ಈ�ರುವ"ವ�� ಸದ� ಸ�ತು� �ಮ�,ಾ�ರುವ"ದ�ಂದ ಸದ� ಸ�'�ನ 0ಾ�1ೕ2ಾನುಭವದ��ರುವ"ದ�ಂದ ಈ $ೆಳಕಂಡ 0ಾ6ಗಳ ಸಮ8ಮದ�� ನಗ,ಾ� ರೂ.31,00,000-00 (ಮೂವ�ೊ�ಂದು ಲ8) ರೂCಾDಗಳನುE �ೕಡುವಂ�ೆ ಮು�ಯಪG ಆದ �ೕವ" ಒIG$ೊಂJದುK, ಸದ� ಹಣದ CೈL ಈ $ೆಳಕಂಡ 0ಾ6ಗಳ ಸಮ8ಮದ�� ನಗ,ಾ� ರೂ.3,00,000-00 (ಮೂರು ಲ8) ರೂCಾDಗಳನುE �ಾಗೂ MೆಕNಳ ಮೂಲಕ 1. MೆO ¸ÀASÉå : 139856 gÀAvÉ gÀÆ. 2,00,000-00 ( JgÀqÀÄ ಲ8) ರೂCಾDಗಳನುE V2ಾಂಕ: 26-12-2007 ರಂದು ,ೇವನಹXY $ೆನ ಾ Zಾ�ಂOನ�� Cಾವ'!ಾಗುವಂ�ೆ, �ಾಗೂ 2. MೆO ಮೂಲಕ MೆO ನಂ. 139857 ರಂ�ೆ ರೂ.2,00,000-00 (ಎರಡು ಲ8) ರೂCಾDಗಳನುE V2ಾಂಕ: 26-12-2007 ರಂದು ,ೇವನಹXY $ೆನ ಾ Zಾ�ಂOನ�� Cಾವ'!ಾಗುವಂ�ೆ,. . . . . . "

¶164

“ ಆ,ಾ� Zೆಂಗಳ\ರು �ಾ]^ಾಂತರ _ೆ�** **_,_ ,ೇವನಹXY �ಾಲೂ�ಕು** **_,_ ಚನE ಾಯಪಟcಣ �ೋಬX** **_,_ ಎe** **_._ �ೆೊ�ೕಹXY �ಾ]ಮದ�� ಸ+ೆ ನಂ* . 8 ರ�� ಒಟುc fg�ೕಣ* 5-13 ಗುಂ�ೆ ಜiೕ�ನ CೈL 2-27 (ಎರಡು ಎಕ ೆ ಇಪG�ೆ�ೕಳk) ಗುಂ�ೆ ಖು ¶Ì ಜiೕ��ೆ ಚಕು.ಬಂV:-

¶165

: ಪ(ವ$ೆ. ಸ$ಾ� ರ0ೆ�, ಪmnಮ$ೆ. : $ಾಂತ ಾಜು ರವರ ಜiೕನು(Zೆಂಗಳ\ರು), ಉತ�ರ$ೆ.: $ೆ.��ೕp ರವರ ಜiೕನು,** ದ6ಣ$.: ೆ q.r.ಮು2ೇ�ೌ ಡ r� `ೇt ZೖರಪG ರವರ ಜiೕನು,ೆ

¶166

ಈ ಮ,ೆ� ಚಕು.ಬಂV�ೊಳಪqcರುವ 2-27 ಗುಂ�ೆ ಜiೕನು ಈ 0ಾ�1ೕನ rಡುಗuೆಯ ಕ ಾರು ಪತ]$ೆ. ಒಳಪqcರುತ�,ೆ. ಸದ� ಸ�'� ೆೆೆೆ 2ಾಲು. ಮೂ`ೆಯ ಕಲು�ಗಳನುE ಸಹ �ಾLg $ೊqcರು�ೆ�ೕ+ೆ. ”

¶167

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶168

21 -

¶169

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶170

HC-KAR

¶171

On a meticulous comparison of the schedule appended to the plaint with the schedule incorporated in the agreement marked as Ex.D9(a), this Court finds that both descriptions unmistakably tally with each other in material particulars. The extent, survey number, and more importantly, the boundaries, are substantially identical. This congruence between the two schedules leaves little room for ambiguity as to the identity of the property covered under the agreement and the property which forms the subject matter of the present suit. Therefore, the plaintiff’s attempt to distinguish the property covered under Ex.D9(a) from the suit schedule property does not prima facie stand to reason and calls for closer judicial scrutiny.

¶172

In this context, the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 assume decisive significance. The evidence on record, particularly the answers tendered during cross-examination, go to the root of the matter and are capable of clinching the entire controversy. The

¶173

22 -

¶174

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶175

HC-KAR

¶176

plaintiff has admittedly received a sum of Rs.31,00,000/from defendant Nos. 10 and 11. The crucial question that arises for consideration is whether, in light of such receipt of substantial consideration and the execution of the agreement during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff retained the locus standi to continue prosecuting the suit. If the plaintiff has, by his own conduct and admissions, parted with possession and acknowledged settlement of disputes in respect of the very same property, the substratum of the suit would stand eroded and the lis itself may not survive for adjudication.

¶177

The admissions made in cross-examination are substantive evidence and bind the maker unless satisfactorily explained. In the present case, the crucial admissions elicited in cross of P.W.1 are not peripheral but strike at the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim. They lend credence to the defence contention that the dispute stood resolved upon receipt of Rs.31,00,000/- and that the plaintiff, having acted upon the agreement, cannot now

¶178

23 -

¶179

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶180

HC-KAR

¶181

approbate and reprobate by continuing the present proceedings. Therefore, the cross-examination of P.W.1 becomes an indispensable piece of evidence which cannot be brushed aside or lightly ignored.

¶182

In view of the decisive nature of these admissions and their direct bearing on the maintainability of the suit, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the cross-examination of P.W.1, which reads as under:

¶183

"2007 ರ�� 10 2ೇ ಪ]'+ಾV ಮು�ಯಪG ಮತು� 11 2ೇ ಪ]'+ಾV ,ೊಡv ಅಕ.ಯ�ಮ� ಇವರುಗX�ೆ ಏನು ಹಕು. ಇತು� ಎಂದು �ೊ'�,ೆyೕ? ಎಂದ ೆ �ೊ'�ಲ�. ಈ ,ಾ+ೆಯನುE ಅವ�ಬzರ ಹಕು.ಗಳk ಏನು ಎಂದು 'Xದು$ೊಳkYವ ಸಲು+ಾ�yೕ ನuೆಸು'�,ೆKೕ+ೆ ಎಂದ ೆ 2ಾನು 2013 �ಂದ ^ಾತ] ನuೆಸು'�,ೆKೕ2ೆ . 2ಾನು ಇ��ಯ ತನಕ 10 2ೇ ಪ]'+ಾV ಮತು� 11 2ೇ ಪ]'+ಾVಗX�ೆ ,ಾ+ಾ ಸ�'�ನ�� ಏನು ಹಕು. ಇತು� ಎಂದು 'Xದು$ೊಂJಲ� ಎಂದ ೆ ಸ�."

¶184

",ಾ+ಾ ಸ�'�ನ 0ಾ�1ೕನವನುE ,ೊಡvಮು�ಯಪG��ಾಗ�ೕ ಅಥ+ಾ |ಕ.ಮು�ಯಪG��ಾಗ�ೕ 10 ಮತು� 11 2ೇ ಪ]'+ಾVಗಳk !ಾವತೂ� rಟುc$ೊqcರ�ಲ� ಎಂದ ೆ �ೌದು, 2ಾನು �ೇಳk�ೆ�ೕ2ೆ 0ಾ�1ೕನದ�� 2ಾ+ೇ ಇ,ೆKವ". 2ಾವ" 10 ಮತು� 11 2ೇ ಪ]'+ಾVಗಳ ಇMೆ}�ೆ fರುದ~+ಾ� ,ಾ+ಾ ಸ�'�ನ�� !ಾವ�ಾ�ದರೂ 0ಾ�1ೕನ �ೊಂVದುKಂ�ೇ? ಎಂದ ೆ ಇಲ�, 2ಾ+ೇ 0ಾ�1ೕನದ�� ಇ,ೆKೕ+ೆ . 2ಾನು 10 ಮತು� 11 2ೇ ಪ]'+ಾVಗಳ ಇMೆ}�ೆ fರುದ~+ಾ� ,ಾ+ಾ ಸ�'�ನ ಪ]'ಕೂಲ 0ಾ�1ೕನದ�� ಇ,ೆKೕ2ೆಂದು ನನE ವLೕಲ��ೆ !ಾವತೂ� �ೇXಲ�."

¶185

24 -

¶186

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶187

HC-KAR

¶188

". . . .�J-1 ರ�� ೕಲ�� ಮರಗಳk ಇರುವ ಬ�ೆN ನಮೂ,ಾ�,ೆ ಎಂದ ೆ ಸ�. ^ಾನ� ಉಚn 2ಾ�!ಾಲಯVಂದ RFA No.936/2014 ರ�� ಈ 2ಾ�!ಾಲಯ$ೆ. ,ಾ+ೆಯನುE Remand ^ಾJದ ನಂತರ �J-3 ರ ಪ]$ಾರ V2ಾಂಕಃ 30.09.2022 ರಂದು ಮೂ��ೇಶನ ಆ,ೇಶ ^ಾJg$ೊಂJ,ೆKೕ+ೆ ಎಂದ ೆ ಸ�. . . . ."

¶189

". . .� . J .9( ಎ ) Mೆ ಕು. ಬಂV ಒಳಗuೆ ಇರುವ ಆgಯ� €ೕ`ೆ ನಮ� !ಾವ",ೆ ೕ ಹಕು. ಇಲ+� ೆ ಂದ ೆ �ೌ ದು , 2 ಎಕ ೆ 27 ಗುಂ�ೆ ಯ ಬ�ೆN ನಮ�ೆ ಹಕು. ಇರುವ"Vಲ .. . . . � "

¶190

". . . ಸ+ೆ* ನಂ.8 ರ�� q.r. ಮು2ೇ�ೌಡ ರವ��ೆ !ಾವ jÃw ಜiೕನು ಬಂVತು� ಎಂದು ನನ�ೆ �ೊ'�ಲ�+ೆಂದ ೆ ಸ�. O.S.No.1036/2007 gÀ°è£À d«ÄÃ¤£À zÀQëtPÉÌ n.©.ªÀÄÄ£ÉÃUËqÀ gÀªÀgÀ ಜiೕನನುE �ೋ�ಸ`ಾ�,ೆ ಎಂದ ೆ ಸ�. . . . ."

¶191

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶192

The admissions extracted supra unmistakably

¶193

demonstrate that the plaintiff, in the present suit, is tracing title only in respect of the extent of 2 acres 10 guntas purchased by his brother, Chikkamuniyappa. The schedule appended to the plaint and the schedule incorporated in the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 10 and 11 under Ex.D9(a) are identical in all material particulars. Both documents clearly describe the suit schedule property as being bounded on the southern side by the land held by T.B. Munigowda. The

¶194

25 -

¶195

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶196

HC-KAR

¶197

plaintiff’s belated and feeble attempt to contend that he handed over possession only of the “southern portion” is wholly misconceived and runs contrary to his own pleadings and documentary admissions. The southern portion admittedly traces its origin to the branch of Poojappa, which was sold to Bhairappa Bachanna under sale deeds dated 23.05.1961 and 29.05.1961; thereafter conveyed to Munivenkatappa under registered sale deed dated 27.08.1962; and ultimately transferred to T.B. Munigowda. The plaintiff cannot now assert possession over a portion which, by his own admission, forms the southern boundary and belongs to T.B. Munigowda. The boundaries described in the plaint, the recitals and schedule in Ex.D9(a), and the admissions elicited in crossexamination cumulatively establish that the property covered under the agreement is none other than the suit

¶198

schedule property.

¶199

26 -

¶200

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶201

HC-KAR

¶202

In the light of the above factual matrix, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff, having entered into a registered agreement during the pendency of the suit and having admittedly received a sum of Rs.31,00,000/-, has divested himself of any subsisting right, title, or interest in the suit schedule property. The agreement evidenced at Ex.D9(a), being a registered document executed pendente lite , binds the plaintiff and operates against him. By receiving substantial consideration and acting upon the terms of settlement, the plaintiff has, in effect, relinquished and waived whatever rights, if any, he claimed in the suit property. The doctrine of estoppel squarely applies; having approbated the agreement and benefited thereunder, he cannot now reprobate and continue to assert inconsistent claims before this Court.

¶203

Therefore, in view of the relinquishment evidenced through Ex.D9(a) and the admitted receipt of Rs.31,00,000/-, the plaintiff has lost the locus standi to

¶204

27 -

¶205

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶206

HC-KAR

¶207

prosecute the present suit. The substratum of the claim stands extinguished by his own conduct. The finding recorded by the Trial Court that the plaintiff has no semblance of right or title over the suit schedule property is well-founded, borne out by pleadings, documentary evidence, and admissions on record, and is strictly in accordance with law. The same does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶208

On a comprehensive re-appreciation of the pleadings, documentary evidence, and the admissions elicited in cross-examination, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has undeniably lost his locus standi to question the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.1036/2007. The material on record clearly establishes that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the plaintiff entered into a registered agreement with defendant Nos.10 and 11 and thereafter executed a relinquishment deed dated 24.12.2007, evidenced at Ex.D9(a), upon receipt of a substantial

¶209

28 -

¶210

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶211

HC-KAR

¶212

consideration of Rs.31,00,000/-. The execution of the said document is not in dispute. The schedules appended to the plaint and Ex.D9(a) unmistakably relate to one and the same property. By voluntarily executing the relinquishment deed and accepting consideration, the plaintiff effectively divested himself of whatever right, title, or interest he claimed in the suit schedule property. Consequently, no subsisting cause of action survived in his favour to assail the compromise decree entered into by the legal representatives of his brother. The doctrine of estoppel squarely applies, and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by simultaneously accepting monetary benefit and pursuing litigation over the very same property.

¶213

In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the plaintiff has lost locus to challenge the compromise decree, and the trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that defendant Nos. 10 and 11 have successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff’s alleged right

¶214

29 -

¶215

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶216

HC-KAR

¶217

and title, if any, stood extinguished pursuant to the execution of the relinquishment deed dated 24.12.2007. Accordingly, Point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in the Affirmative .

¶218

This Court also deems to impose a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the plaintiff, payable to defendants. If during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff has given a quietus to the lis by entering into an agreement with the defendant Nos. 10 and 11 and has received a huge sum of

¶219

Rs. 31,00,000/-, thereby relinquishing his right and title, if any, in the suit property, plaintiff ought to have withdrawn the suit unconditionally. While this huge amount was received during the pendency of the suit, which is acknowledged by the plaintiff, plaintiff still continues to prosecute the suit, and despite having suffered a decree, has also taken this in appeal before this Court. It is in this context, this Court is of the view that despite entering into

¶220

an agreement, giving up his rights, if any, under the agreement evidenced at Exhibit D9(a), the fact that

¶221

30 -

¶222

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶223

HC-KAR

¶224

plaintiff has continued to prosecute the suit against defendant Nos. 10 and 11 clearly amounts to abuse of process and crucial judicial time is unnecessarily wasted at the cost of plaintiff prosecuting this suit. Therefore, this is a fit case where a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- needs to be imposed on plaintiff.

¶225

Finding on Point No.(iii):

¶226

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶227

ORDER

¶228

(i) The Appeal stands dismissed .

¶229

(ii) The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court are hereby affirmed.

¶230

(iii) The appellant/plaintiff shall pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) to respondents/defendant Nos. 10 and 11.

¶231

(iv) The said costs shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶232

31 -

¶233

NC: 2026:KHC:10391 RFA No. 79 of 2024

¶234

HC-KAR

¶235

certified copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of default till realization.

¶236

(v) Draw decree accordingly.

¶237

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶238

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri. Doddamuniyappa Since Deceased by His Lrs v. Smt. Munithayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Doddamuniyappa Since Deceased by His Lrs v. Smt. Munithayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh P Vs K Jyothi

Sri Kiran Bhartiya Vs M D Omer

Ramesh P Vs K Jyothi

M/S Elements 5 Development Consultants Vs the Commissioner

Sri G Balaraju Vs Sri G Shekara

Sri G Thimmaiah Vs Sri K Gangappa