K Chidambaram Vs T.H.M. Virupakshaiah — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

K Chidambaram Vs T.H.M. Virupakshaiah — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed and disposed of, and suit allowed and disposed of, in terms of the compromise petition dated 05.03.2026 under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC; the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1999 in O.S.No.255/1996 and the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009 in R.A.No.1/2009 (Old No.28/2000) are set aside. Under the compromise, New Door Nos. 457 and 458 (available measurement 73 x 200 feet) are divided equally: the northern 73 x 100 feet falls to the legal heirs of Appellant No.3 (Schedule-A: Smt. Manjula Kalal, Megaraj Kalal, Smt. Yashaswini) and the southern 73 x 100 feet falls to Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (Schedule-B: Smt. Parvathamma, Sri. T.H.M. Mahesh, Sri. T.H.M. Shivakumar, Sri. T.H.M. Manjunath). Registry directed to draw up decree in terms of the compromise petition.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Regular Second Appeal should be allowed, the judgments and decrees dated 06.04.2009 in R.A.No.1/2009 (Old No.28/2000) and dated 17.12.1999 in O.S.No.255/1996 set aside, and the suit decreed as prayed for. +1 more

Court's answer

The appeal is allowed and disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The disposal is in terms of the compromise petition dated 05.03.2026.

Key takeaways

The judgment and decree dated 17.12.1999 passed in O.S.No.255/1996 is set aside.ratio¶100
The judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009 passed in R.A.No.1/2009 (Old No.28/2000) is set aside.ratio¶101
The parties and their counsel were physically present before the Court and admitted the contents of the compromise petition, which was taken on record.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under Section 100 CPC - compromise disposal. O.S.No.255/1996 (Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Harapanahalli), a suit by three brothers for declaration and injunction over Door Nos. 1859/C/2, 1859/C/3 and New Door Nos. 457 and 458, was partly decreed on 17.12.1999; the first appeal R.A.No.1/2009 (Old No.28/2000) was dismissed on 06.04.2009. During pendency of RSA No.975/2009, Appellant No.2 died (appeal abated against him), and Appellant No.3 and Respondent No.1 died with their LRs on record. The legal heirs of Appellant No.3 and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC agreeing to divide New Door Nos. 457 and 458 equally (73 x 100 feet each). The parties and counsel appeared and admitted its contents. Held: the appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the compromise petition dated 05.03.2026; the decrees dated 17.12.1999 and 06.04.2009 are set aside; the suit is allowed and disposed of in terms of the compromise; Registry to draw up the decree accordingly.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13793 RSA No. 975 of 2009

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.975 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

K CHIDAMBARAM

SINCE DIED BY LRS

SMT LEELAVATHI, W/O LATE CHIDAMBARAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

K. SHANKAR

S/O LATE K. DHARMAPPA

SINCE DEAD APPEAL IS ABATED.

K. KRISHNOJI KALAL

S/O LATE K. DHARMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

3(A) SMT. MANJULA KALAL W/O LATE KRISHNOJI KALAL AGE: MAJOR

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

3(B) MEGARAJ KALAL S/O K. KRISHNOJI KALAL

AGE: MAJOR

3(C) SMT. YASHASVINI D/O KRISHNOJI KALAL AGE: MAJOR

ALL ARE R/O HARAPANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.

…APPELLANTS

(BY M/S. M RAM BHAT AND SREEPADA ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SRI. B.R. PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED LR’S OF A-3 VIDE ORDER DATED: 04.11.2025

APPEAL STANDS ABATED AGAINST A-2)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13793 RSA No. 975 of 2009

HC-KAR

AND:

T.H.M. VIRUPAKSHAIAH SINCE DEAD R-2 TO R-5 ARE

HIS LR’S

SMT PARVATHAMMA W/O T H M VIRUPAKSHIAH MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

SRI. T.H.M. MAHESH S/O T H M VIRUPAKSHAIAH AGE: MAJOR

OCC: ADVOCATE

SRI. T.H.M. SHIVAKUMAR S/O T.H.M. VIRUPAKSHAIAH AGE: MAJOR

SRI. T.H.M. MANJUNATH S/O T.H.M VIRUPAKSHAIAH

AGE: MAJOR

OCC: ADVOCATE

ALL ARE R/O SUNAGARKERI HARAPANAHALLI TOWN VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.S. GUTTAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 06.04.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.01/2009 (OLD NO.28/2000) ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.1999 PASSED IN OS.NO.255/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI.

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13793 RSA No. 975 of 2009

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

In this appeal, appellants has sought for the following relief:-

“The appellants pray that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to call for the records and to allow this appeal and to set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009 made in R.A.No.1/2009 (Old No.28/2000), on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Harapanahalli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1999 made in O.S.No.255/1996, on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), & JMFC, Harapanahalli, so far as it dismissed the suit and to decree the suit as prayed for in the interest of justice and equity.”

Learned counsel for appellant No.3 has filed a memo enclosing copies of the Special Power of Attorney executed by appellant No.1(a) and appellant No.3(c) in favour of appellant No.3(a) and the same are taken on record.

Learned counsel for appellant No.3 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 have filed Compromise Petition duly signed by appellant Nos.3(a) and 3(b) and respondent Nos.2 to 5 and their respective counsel and the same is taken on record.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13793 RSA No. 975 of 2009

HC-KAR

Appellant Nos.3(a) and 3(b) and their counsel and respondent Nos.2 to 5 and their counsel are physically present before the Court and they admit the contents of the compromise petition, which reads as under:-

“ COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ORDER XXIII

RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

The legal heirs of Appellant No.3 and the Respondents 2 to 5 above named most respectfully submits as under:

1. Sri.K.Chidambaram, Sri.K.Shankar, Sri.K.Krishoji Kalal are sons of late Dharmappa, all these three persons filed a suit in O.S.No.255/1996 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Harapanahalli, praying for declaration and injunction for the property bearing Door No. 1859/C/2 and 1859/C/3 and New Door No.457 and 458, measuring 96 x 133 Feet of Harapanahalli Town. The case of the Respondent herein is that, they have jointly purchased property bearing No.457, measuring 24 x 200 Feet, and 458, measuring 60 x 200 Feet through a registered sale deeds dt.27.02.1984.

2. The Trial Court after hearing on both sides was pleased to pass the Judgment and Decree on 17.12.1999 decreed the suit in part, declaring the plaintiffs i.e., appellants herein as owners and in lawful possession of the property with a zinc sheet house, measuring 37 x 50 feet.

3. The appellants herein aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court have filed an Regular

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13793 RSA No. 975 of 2009

HC-KAR

Appeal in R.A.No.1/2009 (Old No.28/2000) on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Harapanahalli. The Learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the appeal on 6.4.2009, aggrieved by this concurrent filing, the above Regular Second Appeal is filed before this Hon'ble Court.

4. It is submitted that, in the year 1998 itself, Sri. K. Chidambaram, Sri.K.Shankar and Sri.K.Krishnoji Kalal have entered into partition and as per this partition, the property in dispute between the appellants and respondents is fallen to the share of Sri.K.Krishnoji Kalal. Sri.K.Krishnoji Kalal died during the pendency of the above Regular Second Appeal, his LRs i.e., Smt.Manjula, W/o K.Krishnoji Kalal, Sri Megaraj, S/o K.Krishnoji Kalal, Smt Yashashwini, D/o K.Krishnoji Kalal are brought on record.

5. It is submitted that, the Respondent No.1 Sri.T.H.M Virupakshaiah died on 2.8.2019 during the pendency of the above appeal. The Respondent No.2 is the wife of T.H.M Virupakshaiah, Respondent No.3 to 5 are the sons of Sri. T.H.M. Virupakshaiah, the legal heirs of Respondent No. 1 is already on record and the Memo has been filed to that effect.

6. It is submitted that, on the advise of the elders, well wishers, friends and relatives, the legal heirs of Appellant No.3 and the Respondent No.2 to 5 have agreed to compromise the dispute in respect of the property in question. As per their advise, the legal heirs of Appellant No.3 and Respondent No.2 to 5 agreed to compromise and accordingly they have agreed to take equal share in the property bearing New Door No.457 and 458.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13793 RSA No. 975 of 2009

HC-KAR

7. It is submitted that, the property bearing New Door No.457 and 458 of Harapanahalli Town are situated adjacent to each other and with similar boundaries. The total measurement of these two properties is 84 x 200 Feet as per the registered sale deed. At present, in view of the expansion of byepass road and installation of electric transformer, at present, the available measurement is 73 x 200 feet. In this measurement, the legal heirs of Appellant No.3 and Respondent No. 5 have agreed to take equal share i.e., 73 x 100 Feet to the legal heirs of Appeallant No.3 and 73 x 100 feet to the Respondent No.2 to 5. The property fallen to the share of legal heirs of Appellant No.3 is morefully described in the schedule-A hereunder and the property fallen to the share of Respondent No.2 to 5 is morefully described in the schedule-B hereunder. The rough sketch prepared showing the property fallen to the share of LRs of Appellant No.3 and Respondent No.2 to 5 is enclosed to this compromise petition.

8. It is submitted that, the legal heirs of Appellant No.3 and Respondent No. 2 to 5 have freely entered this compromise petition and there is no threat, fear or coercion or undue influence by any person. The legal heirs of Appellant No.3 and Respondent No. 2 to 5 have entered this Compromise Petition with an intention to put an end to the long litigation and for continuation of their good relationship and lead life happily among them. The contents of this Compromise Petition is read over before the legal heirs of Appellant No.3 and Respondent No. 2 to 5 explained in Kannada Language and after knowing the

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13793 RSA No. 975 of 2009

HC-KAR

contents of this compromise petition, the legal heirs of Appellant No.3 and Respondent No. 2 to 5 have put their respective signatures.

WHEREFORE, the legal heirs of Appellant No.3 and Respondent No.2 to 5 respectfully pray that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass the Judgment and Decree in the above Regular Second Appeal in terms of the compromise entered between them and dispose of the above appeal in terms of the compromise petition in the interest of justice and equity.

SCHEDULE-A

(Properties fallen to the share of legal heirs of Appellant No.3 i.e., Smt.Manjula Kalal, Megaraj Kalal, Smt. Yashaswini)

1. All that piece and parcel of site bearing No. 457 and 458, totally measuring 73 x 200 Feet, out of which total measurement, on northern side, measuring 73 x 100 Feet, situated at Harapanahalli Town, Vijayanagar District and bounded on:

East by: Katugara Shivaji and Govindaraj House

West by: Bypass Road

North by: Harapanahalli - Hadagali Road

South by: Remaining property fallen to the Share of Respondent No.2 to 5.

SCHEDULE-B

(Properties fallen to the share of Respondent No.2 to 5 i.e., Smt.Parvathamma, Sri.T.H.M Mahesh, Sri.T.H.M Shivakumar and Sri.T.H.M.Manjunath)

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13793 RSA No. 975 of 2009

HC-KAR

1. All that piece and parcel of site bearing No. 457 and 458, totally measuring 73 x 200 Feet, out of which total measurement, on southern side, measuring 73 x 100 Feet, situated at Harapanahalli Town, Vijayanagar District and bounded on:

East by: Katugara Shivaji and Govindaraj House

West by: Bypass Road

North by: Remaining property fallen to the Share of Legal Heirs of Appellant No.3

South by: Government Property”

In view of the aforesaid settlement entered into

between the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 5, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed and disposed

of in terms of Compromise petition dated 05.03.2026.

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 17.12.1999 passed in O.S.No.255/1996 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) &

JMFC, Harapanahalli and the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009 passed in R.A.No.1/2009 (Old No.28/2000) by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Harapanahalli, are hereby set aside.

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13793 RSA No. 975 of 2009

HC-KAR

(iii) The suit in O.S.No.255/1996 is allowed and

disposed of in terms of Compromise petition dated 05.03.2026.

(iv) Registry to draw up decree in terms of the Compromise petition dated 05.03.2026.

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

SV; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87