IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. 389 of 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN :
SMT.S.PREETHI D/O.N.SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT PANATHUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE - 560 103. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.A.P.PULAKESHI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SRI.M.NAGAPPA REDDY S/O.LATE MUNISHAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS 2 . SRI.N.SRINIVASA REDDY S/O.M.NAGAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 3 . SRI.S.MURALIDHAR S/O.N.SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 4 . SRI.S.MADHUKIRAN S/O.N.SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 5 . SRI.N.RAVINDRA REDDY S/O.M.NAGAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 6 . SRI.R.HARISH S/O.RAVINDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 7 . SRI.R.CHETHAN @ CHETHAN BABUREDDY, S/O.RAVINDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT THOTADA MANE, BALAGERE ROAD VARTHUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 087.
8 . SMT.N.PADMAVATHI D/O.M.NAGAPPA REDDY W/O.NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NERALUR VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT – 562 107.
9 . SMT.KUMUDHA KUMAR BABU W/O.B.P.KUMAR BABU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.3783, 13TH ‘B’ MAIN HAL 2ND STAGE, INDRANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 038.
10 . SMT.NAGARATHNA W/O.SRINIVASAREDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.128/4 NEAR MASZID, DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 107. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.N.CHANDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-8 & R-10, SRI.M.S.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4, SRI.V.JAYARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO R-7, SRI.N.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-9 V/O DATED 02.12.2019, R-9 IS DELETED) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF REJECTION OF PLAINT (JUDGMENT) DATED 03.01.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.443/2015 BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE AND TO RESTORE THE SUIT AND ETC., THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is listed to record the compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that a memorandum of compromise dated 12.07.2019 has been filed and that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.443/2015 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 3rd January, 2017 passed on an application (I.A.No.5) filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 8 in the suit under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). By the said order, the trial Court has allowed the application and consequently rejected the plaint. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit in unison, that during the pendency of this appeal, the parties have arrived at a settlement of their dispute and they have filed a compromise petition and that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition arrived at between the parties. They further submit that the appellant – plaintiff had filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and other incidental and ancilliary reliefs. That by way of compromise, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have agreed to hand over two properties absolutely to the plaintiff as mentioned in the schedule in the compromise petition. They further submit that in view of the same, the appellant – plaintiff will have no claim over the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant does not press clause 16 of the memorandum of compromise, and has also filed a memo to that effect and for deletion of respondent No. 9 from the array of parties.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted since the appellant has no claim over respondent No.9 who is the purchaser of suit item Nos. 8 and 9, he may be deleted from the array of parties. It is stated so in the memo also. Learned counsel for respondent No.9 has no objection for respondent No.9 being deleted from the array of parties, provided the appellant has no claim whatsoever against respondent No.9 regarding suit item Nos.8 and 9.
7. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that there is no impediment for recording the compromise petition arrived at between the parties.
8. The parties are before this Court except respondent No.9. They have been identified by their respective counsel.
9. When queried by this Court, the appellant and the respondents stated that they have indeed arrived at a compromise or a settlement of the dispute on their own free volition, without there being any coercion or undue influence from any side. They further stated that they would abide by the terms of the compromise and hence the appeal may be disposed of accordingly.
10. The compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC is taken on record. It is noted that the same is signed by the respective parties. The same reads as under:
“The appellant and respondents herein have entered into this compromise on the following terms and conditions.
1. The appellant and the respondents herein have settled their dispute amicably at the intervention of well wishers and elders voluntarily on their own without any force, coercion and undue influence whatsoever.
2. The appellant has filed the above appeal challenging the dismissal of suit for partition filed by the plaintiff therein (appellant herein) in O.S.No.443/2015 against the respondents. And the said suit was filed by the appellant seeking partition of her ancestral joint family properties.
3. The appellant is the daughter of 2nd Respondent born through 2nd wife namely : Smt.Nagarathnamma (Respondent no.10 herein) of 2nd Respondent. The Respondent no.3 and 4 are the sons of 2nd Respondent born through his 1st wife namely Smt.Parvathamma.
4. The Respondent No.2 to 4 in order to settle the claims and also in view of the amicable settlement arrived in between the Appellant and Respondent no.2 to 4 that the Respondent No.2 to 4 have agreed to give converted land bearing Sy No.188/1 to an extent of 8 Guntas on the western side portion of land out of the total extent measuring 1-00 Acre situated at Varthur Village, Bangalore East Taluk, an another property bearing Site No.25 Khaneshmari No.1269/1261/25 measuring East to Weat 30 feets and North to South 40 feets situated at Prashanth Nagar carved out of the Sy No.515 of Sarjapura Village and Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, which is more fully described in the schedule of compromise petition. The schedule item No.2 of this compromise petition is stands in the name of 3rd respondent herein, and the 3rd respondent agreed to execute the registered gift deed in favour of the appellant within 30 days from the date of compromise decree and in failure to execute the gift deed the appellant is at liberty to reopen the compromise.
5. The Appellant and Respondent No.10 categorically admits that, in view of the full and final settlement of her claims, the registered Partition Deed dated 09.12.2010, bearing Document No.VRT-I-05777/2010-11, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore East Taluk, entered between the Respondent No.1 to 8 is legally valid, lawful document and it is legally binding upon the Appellant and Respondent No.10.
6. The Appellant and Respondent No.10 categorically admits and confirms that the partition entered in between the Respondents No.1 to 8 under additional registered Partition Deed dated 17.03.2012, bearing Document No.VRT-I-08616/2011-12 store in CD No.VRT-
149, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore East Taluk, is legally valid, lawful document and it is legally binding upon the appellant and respondent No.10.
7. It is categorically admitted by the Appellant that, present land bearing Sy No.188/1, measuring 1-00 Acre of land has been converted to Non Agricultural residential purpose and the revenue documents are standing in the name of Respondent No.3 and 4. It is within the knowledge of the Appellant that the respondents No.3 and 4 have already entered into Memorandum of understanding with M/s Innovative Infra Projects to develop the said land for construction of apartments. Out of 1-00 Acre in Sy No.188/1, now the Appellant has been allotted 8 Guntas towards the western side of the total extent under this compromise petition and hence the Appellant has also agreed for the terms and condition of MOU date 30.10.2012 executed in between the respondents No.3 and 4 and M/s Innovative Infra Projects.
8. Accordingly, the appellant is ready and willing to cooperate with the company M/s Innovative Infra Projects for Development purpose along with her share allotted under this compromise petition. She is ready to get the separate MOU with the company M/s Innovative Infra Projects, to the extent of 8 Guntas without any changes of terms and conditions mentioned in the earlier MOU dated 30.10.2012.
9. It is categorically admitted by the appellant and respondent No.10 that whatever the share allotted under the registered partition deed dated 09.12.2010 and 17.03.2012 in favour of respondents No.2 to 8 are their absolute and self-acquired properties and herein after wards they have no manner of any right, till interest much less possession or any claims whatsoever here afterwards with respect to shares allotted to the respondents No. 2 to 8 and they would hereby under take that they would not interfere in any manner whatsoever with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by the respective parties who are in possession of their respective extents.
10. The respondent No.2 categorically admits that 10th respondent is the 2nd wife and in view of the settlement arrived in between the respondents No.2 to 4 and respondent No.10, Respondent No.2 to 4 have agreed to give an amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) in lieu of her maintenance to the respondent No.10 by the 2nd respondent. The compensation amount referrred to above paid by the 2nd respondent to the 10th respondent paid through respondent No.3 namely Sri.S.Muralidhar through cheque No.846886 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Varthur Branch.
11. It is categorically admitted by the appellant and respondent No.10 that their claim are fully and finally settled by the parties as aforesaid with respect to all the suit schedule properties standing in the names of respondents No.1 to 8. Apart from the suit schedule properties, if any properties either purchased or standing in the names of respondents No.1 to 8 shall be construed as their self-acquired properties and against those properties either the appellant or the respondent No.10 are not having any manner of right, title, interest, much less, possession or any claims whatsoever here afterwards.
12. Thus, the appellant and respondent No.10 affirm that, they have no manner of the right, title or interest much less possession whatsoever over all the suit items standing in the name of respondents’ No.2 to 8 herein.
13. The appellant and respondent No.10 admits that, they will not litigate here afterwards in any manner whatsoever with respect to all the suit schedule properties standing in the names of respondents No.1 to 8 as all the claims of the appellant and respondent No.10 have been full and final settled.
14. The parties have entered this compromise out of their own volition, free will and there could not any coercion or threat or misrepresentation.
15. The contents of this compromise petition are read over and explained in the language known to them.
16. The appellant is at liberty to continue the case against 9th respondent, in respect of suit item No.8 & 9 of the suit schedule properties.
WHEREFORE, the appellant and the respondents hereby pray that this Hon’ble court be pleased to decree the suit in terms of this joint compromise petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
PROPERTIES ALLOTTED TO THE SHARE OF APPELLANT 1. All the piece and parcel of the Property bearing Sy No.188/1 to an extent of 0-08 Guntas (Eight Guntas) on the western side portion of land out of the total extent situated at Varthur Village, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore District. Bounded to the :
East by : Eastern portion of Remaining land in Sy No.188/1 West by : Property in Sy No.190 North by : Property belongs to Venkataswamy Reddy South by : Property belongs to Srinivas 2. All that piece and parcel of the Property bearing Site No.25, Khaneshumari No.1269/1261/25, measuring East to West 30 feets, North to South 40 feets, at Prashanth Nagar, Carved out of the Sy No.515, of Sarjapura Village, Converted from Agricultural to Non Agricultural residential purpose by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub Division in ALN SR (AS) 25/1996-97, dated 16.07.1996 the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub Division in ALN SR (AS) 25/1996-97, dated 16.07.1996 and another order No. ALN SR (A) 222/1995-96, dated 01.02.1996 comes within Sarjapura Grama Panchayath and Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, an Bounded on:
East by : Site No.24 West by : Site No.26 North by : Private Property South by : Road.”
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that clause 16 of the compromise petition may be eschewed and that the memo is also filed in that regard.
12. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is placed on record.
13. In view of what is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant and what is stated in the memo, which is taken on record, it is observed that the appellant has no claim whatsoever as against respondent No.9 vis-à- vis suit item Nos. 8 and 9. Therefore, respondent No.9 is ordered to be deleted from the array of parties and is not a party to this compromise arrived at between the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
14. Respondent No.1 is dead and is represented by his legal representatives – respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 8. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall be granting absolute right, title and interest in respect of the properties shown in the memorandum of compromise to the appellant, for which the other respondents have no objection.
15. The transfer of the said properties in the name of the appellant shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Further, respondent No.3 – S.Muralidhar, has handed over an account payee cheque bearing No.846886 dated 02.12.2019 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to respondent No.10. The same is handed over to learned counsel for the respondent No.10, who has in turn handed it over to respondent No.10 who acknowledges receipt of the same. The same is in compliance of paragraph 10 of the memorandum of compromise.
16. On perusal of the compromise petition, in light of what has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respective parties, and bearing in mind the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant on behalf of the appellant, and which is also signed by the appellant, we find, there is no legal impediment to accept the compromise between the parties, as the terms of the compromise are lawful.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought liberty to reopen the appeal, in the event, the concerned respondents do not register the two properties referred to in the memorandum of compromise in the name of the appellant, within the stipulated period and as submitted in paragraph 4 of the compromise petition. The said liberty is reserved to the appellant.
18. In the result, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
19. The judgment and decree of the trial Court stands substituted by the decree to be drawn in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Office to draw a final decree in the aforesaid terms. Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Mgn/-