IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.314/2014 (PAR) BETWEEN:
1. H.Yeshwanth Kumar, S/o K.Hanumanthappa, Aged about 29 years, R/at No.922/5, 3rd Cross, 25th Main, Sankranthi Circle, Hebbal II Stage, Mysore – 570017.
2. Smt.Gayathri, W/o G.Rama, Aged about 31 years, Residing at No.11/4, New Sayyaji Rao Road, New Bamboo Bazaar, Mysore – 570017.
(By Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, Advocate) AND:
1. K.Hanumanthappa, S/o late Kyatappa @ Krishnappa Aged about 58 years, R/at No.922/5, 3rd Cross, 25th Main, Sankranthi Circle, Hebbal II Stage, Mysore – 570017.
... Appellants 2. K.Nagaraju, S/o late Kyatappa @ Krishnappa, Aged about 60 years, Residing at No.4615, Raja Rao Neelakanthanagar, Behind Vidya Ganapathi Temple, Nanjungud Taluk, Mysore – 571301.
3. I.S.Dinesh, S/o late Shanthamallappa, Aged about 51 years, No.1862, New Kantharaja Urs Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore – 570023.
4. Smt.A.B.Nalina, W/o I.S.Dinesh, Aged about 42 years, No.1862, New Kantharaja Urs Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore – 570023.
5. Smt.P.Vani Sarvotham Rao, W/o Sarvotham Rao Pejawar, Aged about 39 years, Residing at No.383/384, “Mathru Krupa”, 80 Feet Road, Vijayanagar Bank Colony, Billekanahalli, Bengaluru – 560076.
... Respondents (By Smt.Kavya Anil Kumar, Advocate for Sri.M.Sivappa & Assts., Advocate for R3 and R4 Sri.Puthige.R.Ramesh, Advocate for R5 R1 and R2 – served, unrepresented) This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 Of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2013 passed in R.A.No.282/2011 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Mysore, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2011 passed in OS No.44/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nanjangud.
This Regular Second Appeal coming on for ‘Further Orders’, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs before the trial Court in OS No.44/2007 seeking for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share against their father - defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.3 to 5, who are said to be the purchasers of the suit schedule property, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the appeal before the II Additional District Judge, Mysore (referred as the First Appellate Court) in R.A. No.282/2011 which also came to be dismissed on 27.08.2013. Hence, the plaintiffs filed this second appeal before this Court.
2. During pendency of the appeal, both the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed joint compromise application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC and submit that they have settled the dispute among them.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. Plaintiffs/appellant Nos.1 and 2 are present along with their counsel. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 appeared along with their counsel Smt.Kavya Anilkumar. Respondent No.5 appeared before the Court along with the counsel.
4. Perused the records.
5. As per the terms of the compromise, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 received Rs.10 lakhs from the respondent Nos.3 to 5 for relinquishing their rights. The terms of conditions for settlement are as under:
The Appellants and Respondents No.3,4,5 herein jointly submit as follows:-
1. At the intervention of well-wishers, family members and others, Appellants and the Respondent Nos.3,4,5 have amicably settled the inter-se dispute between themselves and have reduced the terms and conditions of the settlement as hereunder:
i) The Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have agreed to compensate the Appellants by paying their share amount for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) by way of cheque bearing No.020179 dated 11/11/2019 Drawn on South Indian Bank, Mysuru Main Branch, Mysuru (The said cheque would be subject to realization) in respect of the schedule properties morefully described in the Schedule belowand Appellants have relinquished all their right, claims in the property described in the Schedule to this Compromise Petition.
ii) Appellants and Smt.Nagarathnamma have executed confirmation Deeds which are detailed hereunder:
a) Confirmation Deed dated 01.10.2019 pertaining to an extent of 34 guntas in new Sy.No.422/2 out of 5 Acres 34 Guntas and to an extent of 5 acres and 07 guntas in Sy.No.423 of Sindhuvalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysuru District in favour of Respondent No.3 and 4 herein.
b) Confirmation Deed dated 01.10.2019 pertaining to an extent of 5 Acres in Sy.No.422/1 out of 5 Acres 34 Guntas in old No.422 of Sindhuvalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysuru District in favour of Respondent No.5 herein.
iii) Appellants have surrendered all their right, title, interest, ownership in respect of Schedule item no.1 and 2 in favour of the Respondents No.3 and 4 herein.
iv) Similarly, Appellants have also surrendered all their right, title, interest, ownership in respect of Schedule item no.3 in favour of the Respondent No.5 herein.
v) Thus Respondent No.3 and 4 have acquired absolute right, title, interest, ownership in respect of schedule item No.1 and 2 of the compromise petition and have all the rights to alienate and encumber or create third party rights in respect of the schedule item No.1 and 2 of the compromise petition. In view of the settlement referred above, there shall be no costs.
vi) Similarly, Respondent No.5 has acquired absolute right, title, interest, ownership in respect of schedule item No.3 of the compromise petition and have all the rights to alienate and encumber or create third party rights in respect of the said Schedule Item No.3 of the compromise petition. In view of the settlement referred above, there shall be no costs.
vii) The 1st and 2nd Respondents having sold the property in view of the compromise, have filed a separate memo to bring to the notice of this hon’ble court that Appeal is withdrawn as against them.
viii) Accordingly, the Appeal may be disposed off in terms of this compromise petition.
6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not appeared before this Court.
7. Appellants not pressing the appeal against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and a memo has been filed in this regard to dismiss the appeal against respondent Nos.1 and 2. In view of the settlement arrived between appellant Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent Nos.3 to 5, appeal filed against respondent Nos.1 and 2 are dismissed as not pressed.
8. The settlement is in accordance with law.
There is no legal embargo for acceptance. Accordingly, compromise is accepted. The IA’s are allowed in terms stated above.
9. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 assured that the cheque given to appellants will be honoured on its presentation. The assurance is placed on record.
In view of the settlement, appeal is disposed off in terms of the compromise between the parties.
SD/- JUDGE NS