IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1512 OF 2013 BETWEEN 1. Smt. Muniyamma, W/o. Late Narasimaiah, Aged about 88 Years, 2. Sri. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Late Narasimaiah, Aged about 65 years, 3. Sri. Narasa Reddy, S/o. Late Narasimaiah, Aged about 60 years, 4. Sri. Narayana Reddy, S/o. Late Narasimaiah, Aged about 55 years, All are R/at Tubarahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, (By Sri. G.R.Lakshmipathi Reddy, Advocate) AND Sri. Ramaiah Reddy, Since deceased by his LRs, 1. Smt. Muniyamma, W/o. Late Ramaiah Reddy, …Appellants Since deceased represented by Her L.Rs R2 to 8 who are already on record, vide order dt. 25.6.2014 2. Smt. Subbamma, Aged about 54 years, D/o. Late Ramaiah Reddy, W/o. Venkataramanappa, R/at Rayanakal Village, Mandenahalli Post, Gowribiddanuru Taluk, Kolar District.
3. Sri. R.T.Nagaraj, Aged about 52 years, S/o. Late Ramaiah Reddy, R/at Tubarahalli Village, Ramagondanahalli Post, Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru-560066.
4. Smt. R.Susheela, Aged about 48 years, D/o. Late Ramaiah Reddy, W/o. Amaresh Reddy, R/at Hebbagodi Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, 5. Sri. R.Ramesh, Aged about 46 years, S/o. Late Ramaiah Reddy, R/at Tubarahalli Village, Ramagondanahalli Post, Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru-560066.
6. Sri. R.Manjunath, Aged about 44 years, S/o. Late Ramaiah Reddy, R/at Tubarahalli Village, Ramagondanahalli Post, Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru-560066.
7. Sri. Muni Reddy, Aged about 58 years, S/o. Late Ramaiah Reddy, R/at Tubarahalli Village, Ramagondanahalli Post, Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru-560066.
8. Sri. T.R.Srinivas Reddy, Aged about 42 years, S/o. Late Ramaiah Reddy, R/at Tubarahalli Village, Ramagondanahalli Post, Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru-560066.
9. Sri. Thimmaiah, S/o. Late Narasimhaiah, Aged about 76 years, R/at Thirupalaya Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District.
10. Sri. Muni Ramaiah, S/o. Late Narasimhaiah, Aged about 59 years, R/at Thirupalaya Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District.
11. Sri. K.Lakshman Raju, S/o. Late R.Venkata Raju, Aged about 61 years, R/o. No.487, 9th Main, III Cross, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560008.
(R11 deleted as per the court order dated 25.03.2019) …Respondents (By Sri. D.R.Rajashekarappa, Advocate for R3, R5 to R8)) This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2013 passed in O.S.No.5883/2000 on the file of the I Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, partly decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession.
This RFA coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:
ORDERS ON COMPROMISE PETITION Appellants counsel files a memo stating that respondent no.11 is not an interested party and therefore he may be deleted from the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that respondent no.11 does not belong to the family of the appellants and other respondents and he was just a purchaser of a piece of land which is not included in the plaint schedule and which was not the subject matter of compromise also. Therefore, appellants are permitted to delete respondent no.11 from the appeal.
2. Compromise petition is presented under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC by the appellants and the respondents except respondent no.11. The first appellant Muniyamma is absent, but she has executed a power of attorney in favour of appellant no.3, Sri Narasa Reddy. Power of attorney is also produced. It authorizes Sri Narasa Reddy to enter into compromise on behalf of the first appellant Muniyamma. First respondent Smt.Muniyamma, wife of Late Ramaiah Reddy is said to be dead.
3. Appellants 2, 3, 4 and respondents 2 to 10 are present before the court. The contents of the compromise petition are explained to them in Kannada language and all of them confirm that they have voluntarily entered into compromise as per the terms mentioned therein. They also submit that they have put their signatures to the compromise without any kind of force or compulsion from anybody else. Advocates for the parties have also subscribed their signatures to the compromise petition. By virtue of this compromise, respondents 2 to 8 are satisfied with the share given to them in the compromise instead of 1/9th share allotted to them as per trial court’s judgment. The shares allotted to the parties to this compromise are described in schedules ‘A’ to ‘F’. Therefore this compromise is lawful and it is accepted. Draw final decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE ckl