IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A.No.690/2012 C/W R.S.A.No.1739/2012 IN RSA No.690/2012:
BETWEEN:
SMT.SIDDAMMA SINCE DEAD BY L.R’s SMT.PUTTA THAYAMMA W/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT, HOSAHALLI EXTENTION 1ST CROSS, MANDYA CITY.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI R P SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI MUGEGOWDA S/O LATE MUGEGOWDANA CHANNAIAH @ CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
2. SRI HOMBE GOWDA S/O LATE MUGEGOWDANA CHANNAIAH @ CHANNEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
a) HOMBALAMMA D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O BASAVEGOWDA R/AT, KANDEGALA VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK.
b) GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O KRISHNEGOWDA WORKING AS ATTENDER IN TALUK OFFICE, MANDYA.
c) SAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O BASAVAIAH R/AT HANIYAMBADI VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK.
d) KEMPAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O MAHADEVU R/AT, 5TH CROSS, HOSAHALLI EXTENTION MANDYA CITY.
e) NAGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O SHIVARAJU R/AT KONANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAPATNA TALUK.
f) SUDHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O DEVARAJU R/AT HOSAHALLI, 3RD CROSS MANDYA CITY.
g) LAXMAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O DEVARAJU R/AT HOSAHALLI, 3RD CROSS MANDYA CITY.
h) GIRIJAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O VARADARAJU R/AT, KODIDHETTIPURA K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI S R PATNA.
i) BHAGERATHI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O LATE KUMARASWAMY j) KUSUMA D/O BHAGERATHI AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS.
k) NIKILGOWDA S/O BHAGERATHI AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS SINCE j & k ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER BHAGERATHI.
l) SAVITHRAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA R/AT, 1ST CROSS, OPPOSITE TO RUDRAPPA CHOULTRY, ASHOKNAGARA, MANDYA CITY.
3) SRI ATHMA S/O BORE GOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.R’s a) SUMITHRAMMA W/O LATE ATHMA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS b) UJVAL AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS S/O LATE ATHMA c) KALPITHA AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS S/O LATE ATHMA SINCE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER SMT. SUMITHRAMMA AND ALL ARE R/AT, 3RD CROSS, HOSAHALLI, MANDYA CITY.
4. SMT. BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O LATE RAMALINGEGOWDA R/AT HOSAHALLI EXTENSION MANDYA CITY.
(BY SRI SUDHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 ... RESPONDENTS NOTICE TO R2 (A) & 2(C) IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD.8.1.2016. R2(b) to (d), (f) to (i) & (c) & R3(a) ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:
09.01.2012 PASSED IN R.A.91/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHELDING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 04.02.2009 IN O.S.192/2005 PASSED IN ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.), MANDYA.
IN RSA No.1739/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.PUTTA THAYAMMA W/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. SRI CHANNAIAH @ CHANNEGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNAIAH @ CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT, HOSAHALLI EXTENTION 1ST CROSS, MANDA CITY – 571 401.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI R P SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI MUGEGOWDA S/O LATE MUGEGOWDANA CHANNAIAH @ CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
2. SRI HOMBE GOWDA S/O LATE MUGEGOWDANA CHANNAIAH @ CHANNEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
a) HOMBALAMMA D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O BASAVEGOWDA R/AT, KANDEGALA VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK – 571 430.
b) GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O KRISHNEGOWDA WORKING AS ATTENDER IN TALUK OFFICE, MANDYA – 571 401.
c) SAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O BASAVAIAH R/AT HANIYAMBADI VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK – 571 401.
d) KEMPAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O MAHADEVU R/AT, 5TH CROSS, HOSAHALLI EXTENTION MANDYA CITY– 571 401.
e) NAGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O SHIVARAJU R/AT KONANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAPATNA TALUK– 571 401.
f) SUDHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O DEVARAJU R/AT HOSAHALLI, 3RD CROSS MANDYA CITY– 571 401.
g) LAXMAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O DEVARAJU R/AT HOSAHALLI, 3RD CROSS MANDYA CITY– 571 401.
h) GIRIJAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O VARADARAJU R/AT, KODIDHETTIPURA K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI S R PATNA – 571 438.
i) BHAGERATHI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS D/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA W/O LATE KUMARASWAMY j) KUSUMA D/O BHAGERATHI AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS.
k) NIKILGOWDA S/O BHAGERATHI AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS SINCE j & k ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER BHAGERATHI.
l) SAVITHRAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O LATE HOMBE GOWDA R/AT, 1ST CROSS, OPPOSITE TO RUDRAPPA CHOULTRY, ASHOKNAGARA, MANDYA CITY– 571 401.
3. SMT.BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE RMALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
4. SRI ANILKUMAR S/O LATE RMALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
5. SRI SUNILKUMAR S/O LATE RMALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
6. SRI ATHMA S/O BORE GOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.R’s a) SUMITHRAMMA W/O LATE ATHMA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS b) UJVAL AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS S/O LATE ATHMA c) KALPITHA AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS S/O LATE ATHMA SINCE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER SMT. SUMITHRAMMA AND ALL ARE R/AT, 3RD CROSS, HOSAHALLI, MANDYA CITY– 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUDHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 (A) & 2(e) IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD.8.1.2016. R2(b) to (d), (f) to (i) & (l) & R3,4,5,& 6(a) ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 09.01.2012 PASSED IN R.A.*92/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHELD THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 04.02.2009 IN O.S.*180/2006 PASSED IN ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.), MANDYA.
THESE RSAs COMING ON ADMISSION FOR THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Learned counsel for both the parties in these appeals submit that parties have compromised the matter and they have filed a compromise petition dated 28.3.2019 duly signed by the parties and attested by their counsel and the same is taken on record.
2. The parties to the lis are present and their presence is placed on record. Suit is for partition among the family members and the compromise appears to be lawful and the same is accepted.
*Corrected vide chamber’s Order dated 16.04.2019.
3. Placing the statements made in the compromise petition on record, the appeals are disposed of in terms compromise petition.
tsn* Sd/- JUDGE