Sri Srinivas Vs Sri Nanjappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri Srinivas Vs Sri Nanjappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular Second Appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC; respondent No.3 agreed to give up her right to an extent of 2 guntas of land described in the schedule of the compromise petition, and the Registry was directed to draw the decree in terms of the compromise petition.

Ratio / Principle

The compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC by the appellant and respondent No.3 was accepted, the parties having understood the terms of the compromise and having filed a joint verifying affidavit.

Key takeaways

The Regular Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the appellant and respondent No.3.ratio¶38
The Registry was directed to draw the decree in terms of the compromise petition.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 1392 of 2022, DEC) filed under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2022 in R.A.No.6/2020 (IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District), which had confirmed the decree dated 13.12.2018 in O.S.No.288/2015 (Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote), was disposed of on the basis of a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed jointly by the appellant Sri Srinivas and respondent No.3 Smt. Jayamma. Respondent No.3 agreed to give up her right to 2 guntas of the suit schedule land (revenue entries standing in her name) morefully described in the schedule to the compromise petition, the settlement having been effected at the intervention of panchayathdars and well-wishers. The Court accepted the compromise upon the parties filing a joint verifying affidavit, disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise, and directed the Registry to draw the decree accordingly. Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.P.Sandesh (single Judge, oral judgment), dated 06.02.2026. No issues were framed and no precedent cases were cited; the matter ended in a negotiated settlement rather than adjudication.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7172 RSA No. 1392 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1392 OF 2022 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SRINIVAS, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT DASARAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. K.V.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. NANJAPPA, S/O LATE DODDA MUNINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O LASKHMINARAYANAPPA, D/O LATE DODDA MUNINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRESENTLY, R/AT NEELERI GRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562114.

SMT. JAYAMMA, D/O LATE DODDA MUNINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7172 RSA No. 1392 of 2022

HC-KAR

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE DODDA MUNINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

SRI. SRINIVAS, S/O LATE DODDA MUNINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

SRI. THAYAPPA, S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT DASARAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. LAVANYA R, ADVOCATE R3)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.07.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.6/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.288/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE.

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7172 RSA No. 1392 of 2022

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant, respondent No.3 and their respective learned counsel are present before the Court. The appellant and respondent No.3 have filed the compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the original suit, respondent No.3 contested the matter and now respondent No.3 has agreed to give up her right to an extent of 2 guntas of land, which is morefully described in the schedule of the compromise petition. The respondent No.3 says that the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owner and revenue entries of the suit schedule property are standing in the name of respondent No.3 herein. Hence, respondent No.3 is entering into this compromise with the appellant herein. Both of them have settled the matter at the intervention of the panchayathdars and well-wishers of the appellant and respondent No.3.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7172 RSA No. 1392 of 2022

HC-KAR

The parties have understood the terms of the compromise. Hence, the compromise petition is accepted and the parties have also filed the joint verifying affidavit. Hence, the Regular Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise.

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

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5