IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1272 OF 2015 (PAR) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.A.NAGENDRAMMA W/O.LATE P.S.ANJINEYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 2. SMT.A.HAMSAJA D/O.LATE P.S.ANJINEYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3. SMT.A.SUJANA W/O.KISHANKUMAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4. SMT.A.ANITA W/O.K.TULLASIGIRI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. SMT.A.SWAGATHA W/O.PAVANKUMAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL RESIDING AT NO.345 7TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 008.
(BY SRI K.KISHOR KUMAR, ADV.,) AND:
… APPELLANTS 1. SMT V.SHYLAJA W/O.LATE A.VENKATESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT.NO.796, 8TH ‘B’ MAIN 2ND A CROSS, 7TH SECTOR HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 034.
2. M/S.GRD DAIRY FOODS (P) LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.10, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE HOSUR – 535 126 REPRESENTED BY ITS M.D. MR.G.R.BALASUBRAMANYAN 3. SRI P.R.PRABHAKAR S/O. LATE P.R.RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4. SRI.P.R.ANJANEYA REDDY S/O.LATE P.R.RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT NO.9, “SANJEEV SADHAN”, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT PANATHUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 103.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.NATARAJ.R., ADV., FOR C/R1, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.02.2019, R-2 TO R-4 ARE DELETED) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W.SEC.96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.6.2015 IN O.S.NO.4252/2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 9TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-5) AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
***** THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH.,J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T A joint compromise petition has been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure by the learned Counsel for the appellant Nos.1 to 5 and respondent No.1. The partition sketch is also produced along with the compromise petition.
2. The parties are present in the Court and identified by their respective Counsels. They have arrived at compromise on various terms and conditions with regard to the division of the properties.
3. On considering the same, we are of the view that in the interest of parties, the same is a lawful compromise. Hence, the compromise petition is accepted. The judgment and decree dated 09.06.2015 passed in O.S.No.4252 of 2010 by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru is modified in terms of the compromise petition.
Therefore, the appeal is disposed off in terms of the compromise petition.
Registry to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE VMB