Yashodamma Vs T S Srikantaiah — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Yashodamma Vs T S Srikantaiah — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise petition; Office to pass modified decree appending the copy of the joint memo along with sketch as part of the decree.

Issue for consideration

Whether the joint memo/compromise petition depicts the true terms of settlement between the parties, reached without force, undue influence or coercion.

Court's answer

After reading out the contents of the joint memo to the power of attorney holder of the appellants and respondent No.2, who affirmed that the compromise petition depicted the true terms of settlement without force, undue influence or coercion, the Court found no impediment to placing the joint memo on record and disposing of the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

Key takeaways

Office is directed to pass a modified decree in terms of the compromise petition, appending the copy of the joint memo along with sketch as part of the decree.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC (RSA No. 999 of 2024 (INJ)), High Court of Karnataka, decided 20.07.2026 by V Srishananda J. The appeal lay against the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2024 in R.A.No.20/2022 (III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru), which had dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2022 in O.S.No.1020/2011 (II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru). On the day fixed for reporting settlement, respondent No.2 S. Rudresh appeared in person (first respondent joined by video call) and appellant No.2 Srinivasa H.V., power of attorney holder for all appellants, appeared. The parties presented a joint memo signed by themselves and their respective advocates; its contents were read out to the power of attorney holder and respondent No.2, who affirmed that the compromise petition depicted the true terms of settlement and that there was no force, undue influence or coercion. Finding no impediment, the Court placed the joint memo on record and disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise petition, directing the Office to pass a modified decree appending the copy of the joint memo along with sketch as part of the decree.

1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37381 RSA No. 999 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010351622024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.999 OF 2024 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

YASHODAMMA W/O. LATE VENKATARAVANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

SRINIVASA. H. V. S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

SHANTHAKUMARI. H. V. D/O LATE VENKATARAVANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

MADHUSUDHANA H. V. S/O. LATE VENKATARAVANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

THIMMAIAH S/O. LATE MUDLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

JAYARAM S/O. LATE MUDLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HONASIGERE, HONASIGERE POST, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK -572 120.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. A.N.KULKARNI FOR SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATES)

2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37381 RSA No. 999 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010351622024

AND:

T S SRIKANTAIAH S/O. LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

S. RUDRESH S/O. T. S. SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF HONASIGERE, HONASIGERE POST, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK-572 120.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.R.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND R1)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.03.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.20/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.01.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1020/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37381 RSA No. 999 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010351622024

ORAL JUDGMENT

On behalf of respondents, S. Rudresh who is the second respondent is present before the Court and he has made a video call wherein, first respondent is seen sitting in the car in the precincts of the Court. On behalf of the appellants, appellant No.2 – Srinivasa H.V., who is also power of attorney holder of all the appellants is present.

They present a joint memo signed by the parties

and their respective advocates.

Contents of the joint memo are read out to the power of attorney holder of the appellants and respondent No.2, they agreed that the terms of the compromise petition depict true terms of settlement and there is no force, undue influence or coercion in reaching out the terms of the settlement.

As such, there is no impediment for this Court to place the joint memo on record and dispose of the appeal.

4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37381 RSA No. 999 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010351622024

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

(ii) Office is directed to pass modified decree in terms of the compromise petition appending the copy of the joint memo along with sketch as part of the decree.

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86