IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR Regular First Appeal No.452 of 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN :
1. SMT. G. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE SRI GOVINDARAJ, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
2. SMT. RAMYA KUMARI D/O. LATE SRI GOVINDRAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 258/2, POOJA GARDEN, KALKERE VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 036.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. KACHARAKANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
2. SMT. SONNAMMA D/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
3. SRI SUBRAMANI S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
4. SMT. SUDHA D/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
5. SRI GOVINDARAJU S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
6. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI D/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT KITHIGANOOR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 87.
7. SRI B. M. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. B.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO. 23, SLV NIVAS, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SUBRAMANYA LAYOUT, VIJINAPURA, DOORAVANI NAGARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 016.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7; RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 – APPEAL DISMISSED) THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2017 PASSED ON I.A. IN O.S. NO.1026/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants has filed the Memo praying that the appeal as against respondent Nos.2 to 6 may be dismissed.
2. Memo is taken on record.
3. Appeal as against respondent Nos.2 to 6 is dismissed as not pressed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.7 jointly submit that during the pendency of this appeal the parties have arrived at a settlement and the appellants have now conceded to the fact that respondent No.7 is the rightful owner of the suit schedule property. That the appellants do not press this appeal in that regard. They further submit that a Memorandum of Compromise has been filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’, for brevity) and that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.
5. The appellants and respondent No.7 are present before this Court. They have been identified by their respective counsel. When queried, they submit that they have resolved their disputes and they have agreed for disposal of the appeal in terms of the compromise arrived at between them on their own free volition and without there being any coercion or undue influence from any side. They state that they have subscribed their signature to the Memorandum of Compromise and that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
6. The Memorandum of compromise filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P.C. is taken on record.
7. It is noted that the same has been signed by both the appellants and respondent No.7 and their respective counsel.
8. As already noted, the appeal as against respondent Nos.2 to 6 has been dismissed as not pressed. The Memorandum of Compromise reads as under :
“The appellants and the respondent No.7 in the above appeal begs to state as follows :
1. At the intervention of the well-wishers and friends, the subject matter of the above appeal has been amicably settled between the appellants and respondent No.7 and both the parties have agreed to the following terms.
2. The appellants have filed a suit in O.S. No.1026/2011 before the court below for the relief of partition and separate possession and also for a decree of declaration to declare that the order passed in INA:CR/198/1997-98, dated 06.07.2000, by the Special Deputy Commissioner, is not binding on the share of the appellants/plaintiffs and other reliefs against the respondents and during the pendency of the suit the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and respondent Nos.6 and 7 have filed written statements and I.A. under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC and after hearing the Hon’ble trial Court by its order dated 02.02.2017 allowed the IA under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed as not maintainable. As aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2017 the appellants have preferred the above appeal.
3. The appellants concedes that the respondent No.3 was cultivating the land bearing Sy. No.170/1, measuring 2 acres 35 guntas including 3 guntas of phut karab, situated at Kithaganoor village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, and the said land is more fully described in the schedule to this compromise petition and hereinafter referred as schedule property. The schedule property was inam land and the 3rd respondent herein had filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru on 29.06.1991 for grant of occupancy rights in his favour and the said application came to be numbered as INA:CR/198/1997-98, and after inquiry the Special Deputy Commissioner has granted occupancy rights vide order dated 10.07.2000 and the said order became final and accordingly the 3rd respondent was the absolute owner of the schedule property.
4. The appellants concedes that subsequently the 3rd respondent/3rd defendant and his family members including the respondents No.2 and 4 to 6 have jointly executed a registered sale deed in favour of the 7th respondent on 22.10.2011 and accordingly the 7th respondent has acquired right, title, interest and possession over the schedule property.
5. The appellants further concedes that the appellants have no manner of right, title, interest, ownership/share or possession over the schedule property.
6. The appellants further concedes that since from the date of registered sale deed the 7th respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and the appellants shall not interfere with the peaceful possession of the 7th respondent in respect of the schedule property.
7. The appellants agreed that they will not claim any right over the schedule property in future and it is further agreed that the revenue records are standing in the name of the 7th respondent as per the registered sale deed and the revenue dispute between the appellants and respondent No.7 in respect of the schedule property has attained finality as per the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District vide order dated 26.06.2018 passed in R.P. No.440/2016-17.
8. The appellants further admits that the 7th respondent is at liberty to enjoy the schedule property as absolute owner.
9. The appellants and respondent No.7 further admits that they have entered into this compromise out of their own volition, free will and without any undue influence, coercion from any angle and they have signed this compromise after verifying and understanding the terms of this compromise.
WHEREFORE, the appellants and respondent No.7 most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispose the above appeal in terms of the above compromise petition and draw decree accordingly, in the interest of justice.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.170/1, measuring 2 acres 32 guntas and 3 guntas of phut kharab, totally 2 acres 35 guntas, situated at Kithaganoor village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, and bounded on the:
East by : Land of Seshappa and Muniyappa West by : Land of Anekal Narayanappa and Land belonging to B.M. Chandrashekar North by : Land belonging to B.M. Chandrashekar South by : Land belonging to Anjinappa and Papegowda 1. Sd/-
Sd/- 2. Sd/-
Advocate for appellants Appellants Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate for respondent No.7 Respondent No.7 Bengaluru Date : 01.08.2019 Execution admitted before me.”
9. On perusal of the same, we find that the terms of the settlement are lawful. That there is no legal impediment for accepting the settlement arrived at between the parties. In the circumstances, the impugned order and decree of the trial Court is substituted by the settlement arrived at between the parties. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
10. Office to draw a final decree in the above terms.
11. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A. No.1 of 2017 stands disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE hnm