IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA R.S.A.NO.1921/2010 (DEC) BETWEEN :
1. M.R. VASUDEVA REDDY, S/O M RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O BANDLORAHATTY, HAMLET OF TALAVATTY, HIRIYUR TALUK – 577 102.
2. R .RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O M RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O NITYANANDA NAGARA, BEHIND TALUK OFFICE, HIRIYUR -577 102. ... APPELLANTS (BY DR.NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE- ABSENT) AND 1. SUSHEELAMMA W/O R CHINANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS SARVAMANGALA NILAYA, BEHIND CHURCH, BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE, KELOGOTE CHITRADURGA CITY -577 101.
2. SARVAMANGALA @ ASHWINI D/O R CHIDANANDA REDDY AGED 19 YEARS R/O SARVAMANGALA NILAYA, BEHIND CHURCH BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA-577 101.
3. PUSHPAVATHI D/O RATHNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 3(a) NARAYANAREDDY, S/O LAKSHMAN REDDY, 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT THOPURAMALIGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK.
3(b) RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, S/O NARAYANA REDDY, 30 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT THOPURAMALIGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK.
3(c) KAVITHA, D/O NARAYANA REDDY, 35 YEARS, 5TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, CHITRADURGA TALUK, 3(d) SHANTHAMMA D/O NARAYANA REDDY, W/O BHARATHEESHA REDDY, 32 YEARS, SWANTHALINGANNA SHETTY COLONY, NEAR NARAYANA COLLEGE, MARUTHINILAYA, BELLARY.
3(e) ANITHA D/O NARAYANA REDDY, W/O DHANANJAYA REDDY, 29 YEARS, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, BAUJINAGARA, PILLEKERANAHALLI, CHITRADURGA.
3(f) LAKSHMI, W/O KRISHNA KUMAR ALIAS KRISHNA REDDY, 35 YEARS, LAKSHMIPURA, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
4. BABU REDDY S/O BHEEMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HEAD CONSTABLE R./O BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, CHITRADURGA– 577 101.
5. DHANANJAYAREDDY S/O BHEEMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O GUDDADA RANGAVAVANAHALLY VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 101.
6. SUJATHAMMA, W/O DEVANADAREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O JAGALUR GOLLAHARATTY JAGALUR -577101.
7. SHOBAMMA W/O MARUTHI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O CHIKKAMALLANAHOLE, JAGALUR TALUK -577 121.
8. GOVINDA REDDY S/O APPANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O GUDDADA RANGAVAVANAHALLY VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 101.
9. SULOCHANAMMA D/O RAMAREDDY, W/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O TALAVATTI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK -577 102. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, SRI PRABHU.L, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a to f), R4 to R9) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.04.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.85/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 16.09.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.27/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HIRIYUR.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This second appeal is by defendants 1 and 2 in OS.No.27/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Hiriyur. Admittedly, said suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein i.e., Smt.Susheelamma and Sarvamangala for the relief of partition of suit schedule properties, which consists of 7 items of agricultural lands (in the compromise it was wrongly referred to as 6 items, subsequently it is corrected and shown as 7 items). The said suit is against the other members of the family of Susheelamma’s husband and Sarvamangala’s father.
2. At this juncture, it is necessary to recite the relationship between the parties with reference to their rank in the original suit. 1st plaintiff – Susheelamma is the wife of R.Chidananda Reddy. 2nd plaintiff – Sarvamangala is his daughter. Said Chidananda Reddy is son of M. Rama Reddy. Admittedly, said Rama Reddy had in all 6 children i.e., 1st plaintiff’s husband – Chidananda Reddy, 1st defendant – M.R.Vasudeva Reddy and 2nd defendant – R.Ramakrishna Reddy. These three are the sons of Rama Reddy. Coming to other 3 children of Rama Reddy, they are, Rathnamma, Sharadamma and Sulochana. Incidentally, as on the date of filing of the suit, Rathnamma had already died leaving her surviving defendants 3 to 5, namely (a) Pushpavathi, (b) Babu Reddy and (c) Dhananjaya Reddy. Similarly the other daughter of Rama Redy i.e., Sharadamma had also died leaving her surviving defendants 6 to 8, namely (a) Sujathamma, (b) Shobamma and (c) Govinda Reddy. So far as another daughter of Rama Reddy i.e, Sulochana is concerned, she was alive and was arraigned as 9th defendant in the said suit. She is still alive and present before the Court today as 9th respondent in this proceedings.
3. The suit in OS.No.27/2006 which was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.9.2009 in allotting 7 out of 24 shares in 7 items of suit schedule properties to plaintiffs, which was the subject matter of an appeal in RA.No.85/2009 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, wherein the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by defendants 1 and 2 in the original suit and confirmed the judgment and decree challenged therein. As against that, defendants 1 and 2 in the original suit have come up in this second appeal.
4. During the pendency of this appeal, it is seen that the 3rd defendant in the original suit i.e., 3rd respondent herein, namely, Smt.Pushpavathi died and in her place her husband and children have come on record as respondents 3(a) to 3(f) .
5. It is also necessary to mention at this juncture that besides this litigation there was one more suit between the same parties in OS.No.40/1996. The said suit was filed by Smt.Narasamma, the wife of propositus – Rama Reddy. In the said suit also (OS.No.40/1996) the plaintiffs in OS.No.27/2006 i.e., respondents 1 and 2 herein have secured some right in respect of some of the properties and the judgment and decree passed therein was the subject matter of an appeal before this Court in RFA.No.130/1996, which came to be dismissed on 21.8.2002 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
6. It is in substitution of the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.40/1996 which was filed by Smt.Narasamma, the wife of propositus – Rama Reddy and also the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.27/2006 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, the compromise is arrived at between the parties in this second appeal, wherein they have agreed to give a go-bye to the finding rendered in both the suits in recognizing the right of plaintiffs’. Instead, the parties to this proceedings who were also parties in OS.No.40/1996 would express their desire to share the suit schedule properties in OS.No.40/1996 and OS.No.27/2006 in terms of the compromise.
7. All the parties would admit that the total properties which are available to the joint family of propositus - Rama Reddy are 7 items of properties shown in the suit schedule in OS.No.27/2006 and also a house property which is not shown in schedule to OS.No.27/2006. However, it is stated that said house property was included in the suit schedule which was filed by Smt.Narasamma (OS.No.40/1996) and they would submit that these 7 items of agricultural lands and one house property are the properties which are available for partition.
8. As could be seen, there are certain discrepancies in the compromise petition which is prepared with reference to what should be the right of defendants in OS.No.27/2006 in suit schedule properties shown therein. In this regard, when this court called upon each of the parties to OS.No.27/2006, they submit as under;
(a) Plaintiffs (Susheelamma and Sarvamangala) would submit that in terms of compromise what they have sought is only allotment of house property bearing katha No.453 and assessment No.7719/3598, totally measuring 25 x 24 feet situated in 5th block, Church Extension, Basaveshwara Circle, Chitradurga, with boundaries as shown in the compromise petition at page No.4 in item No.3. So far as other 7 items of agricultural lands, which is roughly around 25 acres is concerned, they would submit that they do not want any share in the said lands and they do not intend to stake any right, title or interest in said properties and they would also submit that it is open for defendants 1 and 2, legal representatives of 3rd defendant and the other defendants in the original suit to divide said properties among themselves.
(b) Now coming to defendants 1 and 2, they would submit that all the parties to the suit have agreed that suit schedule items 1 to 7 in OS.No.27/2006 are to be allotted to their share. They would state that they are in possession of entire extent of properties shown in the schedule to OS.No.27/2006.
(c) At this juncture, when this Court called upon the legal representatives of Pushpavathi d/o Rathnamma (Rathnamma is one of the sisters of 1st plaintiff ‘s husband, defendants 1 and 2), namely respondent Nos.3(a) to 3(f) herein, they would submit that they do not want any share in any of the suit schedule properties in OS.No.27/2006 as well as OS.No.40/1996. According to them, 7 items of agricultural lands may be given to the share of respondents 1 and 2 herein (defendants 1 and 2 in the original suit). Similarly, the other legal representatives of Rathnamma, namely defendants 4 and 5 in the original suit, who are brothers of deceased Pushpavathi - 3rd respondent herein would also submit that they do not want any share in any of the suit schedule properties and that all the agricultural lands may be taken by their maternal uncles, namely respondents 1 and 2 herein.
(d) Now coming to respondents 6 to 8 herein, who are defendants 6 to 8 in the original suit, they are the children of late Sharadamma (Sharadamma is one of the daughters of propositus -Rama Reddy), they would also submit that they are not willing to take any share in any of the suit properties i.e., either in OS.No.27/2006 or in OS.No.40/1996. They would further submit that suit schedule properties in OS.No.27/2006 as well as OS.No.40/1996, namely 7 items of agricultural lands may be taken by their maternal uncles i.e, respondents 1 and 2 herein.
(e) So far as 9th respondent herein who is 9th defendant in the court below, namely Smt.Sulochana, who is present before the Court is concerned, she would also submit that she does not want any share in the suit schedule properties in OS.No.27/2006 as well as in OS.No.40/1996 and all the 7 items of agricultural lands may be allotted to the exclusive share of respondents 1 and 2 herein.
9. With this, what is clearly seen by this Court is in spite of there being some mistakes in the compromise petition, which is drawn by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the parties who are present before the Court individually represented to this Court that the house property, as stated supra, situated in Chitradurga Town be given to the share of plaintiffs’ in the original suit i.e., respondents 1 and 2 herein and so far as 7 items of agricultural lands which are shown in schedule of OS.No.27/2006 as well as OS.No.40/1996 shall be taken by the two sons of propositus Rama Reddy, namely M.R.Vasudeva Reddy and R.Ramakrishna Reddy (appellants 1 and 2 herein).
10. Accordingly, the suits in OS.No.27/2006 and 40/1996 are decreed. The earlier judgment passed in said suits which are confirmed in RA.No.85/2009 as against OS.No.27/2006 and judgment and decree passed in RFA.No.130/1996 as against OS.No.40/1996 are ordered to be replaced by the decree in this proceedings. The plaintiffs and defendants in the original suit in OS.No.40/1996 are at liberty to get the compromise arrived at in this proceedings substituted in RFA.No.130/1996 with necessary recital in the decree drawn in this appeal.
11. The registry is directed to substitute the decree in both the suits in terms of the aforesaid compromise and draw up the decree accordingly.
12. Consequently, by recording compromise in the aforesaid manner, this second appeal is disposed of. All the parties who are present before the Court are directed to affix their signature to the order sheet which shall be identified by their respective learned counsel.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-