Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD R.S.A.No. 2162 OF 2011(DEC-INJ) BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Eerappa S/o Basappa Aged about 37 years 2. Sri.Jayanna S/o Basappa Aged about 35 years 3. Smt. Puttathayamma W/o Shivanna Aged about 43 years All are residing at Bisalahalli Village, Konanur Hobli Arakalgud Taluk. … Appellants (By Sri.Abhinav R., Advocate) AND:
1. Sri.Puttalingaiah Since dead by LRs 1(a) Sri. Madappa K.P Aged about 67 years S/o Late. Puttalingaiah R/at Salagame Road Near Sanjeevini Hospital Saraswathipuram Hassan-573 201.
1(b) Sri. Gurulingappa Aged about 62 years S/o Late. Puttalingaiah R/at Kumbara Beedi Idga Extention Hassan-573 201.
1(c) Sri.K.P.Ganesh Aged about 43 years S/o Late. Puttalingaiah R/at Ward No.17. Adiimane Road Behind Shivajothi Kalyana Mantapa Hassan-573 201. ... Respondents (By Sri.Allah Bakash.M., Advocate for R1(a) to R1(c)) This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated: 26.07.2011 passed in R.A.N.10/2011 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Arkalgud, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated:13.01.2011 passed in OS.No.128/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Arkalgud.
This RSA, coming on for orders, this day, this Court, delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T The learned counsel for the parties have filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The original suit was filed for declaration and injunction. By judgment and decree dated 13.01.2011 in O.S.Nos.128/2008 and 129/2008 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Arkalgudu the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed R.A.Nos.10/2011 and 11/2011. The Fast Track Court, Arkalgudu, by order dated 26.06.2011 has dismissed the said regular appeals. Being aggrieved by the same plaintiffs have filed this regular second appeal before this Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. The appeal was admitted on 07.04.2014 and the following substantial question of law has been framed:
“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in holding that the sale deed Ex.P1 is void on account of violation of Rule 43(6)(a)(ii) of the allied Land Grant Rules and dismissing the suit.”.
3. Now that both the parties have filed a compromise petition. The parties are present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsel. The compromise petition reads as hereunder:
“The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) humbly submit as follows:
1. The Appellants have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree dated: 13.01.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Arakalgud, in OS.No.128/2008 (old number OS.No.22/2000) and Judgment and Decree dated 26.07.2011 passed by the Court of Fast Track Arakalgud, in R.A.No.10/2011 .
2. During the pendency of the present Appeal, both the parties at the intervention of well wishers and friends have amicably settled all disputes. The settlement is recorded in a Settlement Deed dated:31.03.2018. A Compromise Petition signed by the Appellants and original Respondent has been filed before this Hon’ble Court on 21.03.2019. The Respondent passed away on 12.05.2019, thereafter his legal heirs have been brought on record.
3. The suit Schedule Property which measures 7 Acres and now assigned
Respondents No.1(a) to 1(c), the legal heirs of deceased Respondent Sri. Puttalingaiah has been allotted an extent of 2 Acres 30 Guntas in the Schedule Property and the same is morefully described in the schedule hereunder and is hereinafter referred to as the Schedule ‘A’ Property. The 3rd Appellant Smt. Puttathayamma has been allotted an extent of 2 Acres 10 Guntas in the Schedule Property which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder and is hereinafter referred to as the Schedule ‘B’ Property. The 1st Appellant Sri.Erappa has been allotted an extent of 1 Acre in the Schedule Property which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder and is hereinafter referred to as the Schedule ‘C’ property. The 2nd Appellant Sri.Jayanna has been allotted an extent of 1 Acre in the Schedule Property which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder and is hereinafter referred to as the Schedule ‘D’ Property. The parties have been put in possession of their respective portions of property allotted to them and which is described in the schedule to the Compromise Petition.
4. The Schedule Properties allotted to each of the parties as mentioned above shall constitute their separate property respectively, over which the rest of the parties shall not have any manner of right, title, interest, claim or possession. The Appellants and Respondent shall be the absolute owner of the properties allotted to them under this compromise any they shall be entitled to deal with the Schedule Properties allotted to them in any manner they deem fit. The parties shall be entitled to get the properties phoded and demarcated as per the schedules allotted to each of the parties and get the khata, RTC and other revenue records mutated to their name as per the allocation of properties made in this Compromise Petition.
5. The division of properties in the manner set out herein shall be binding on the parties and all their respective families. The parties agreed to keep each other indemnified against any claim, action or proceedings, if any, that may arise in future from the family members of the parties herein and such action, claim or proceedings shall be resolved by the parties herein on behalf of their respective families at their own cost and expense.
6. The present Compromise Petition has been entered into, out of their own will without there being any pressure, coercion or undue influence. The present Compromise Petition shall be binding on the families of the respective parties and they shall not be entitled to re-open the same under any circumstance whatsoever.
7.The Defendant/Respondent Puttalingaiah deceased during the pendency of the above appeal. The Amended Appeal is also filed. The Respondent Puttalingaiah since deceased is represented by the Respondent 1(a) to (c) have also agreed to the terms of above settlement deed dated: 31.03.2018 and also to present Compromise Petition.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be Pleased to decree the Appeal in terms of the present Compromise Petition and also direct the registry/office, to draw a final decree accordingly, in the interest of justice and equity.”
Next >