IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1376 OF 2015 (PAR) BETWEEN:
SRI HOSALLAPPA S/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH AGED 59 YEARS R/AT KESTHUR VILLAGE KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE – 572 128 ….APPELLANT (BY SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA.P.M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI SIDDARAJU S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT KENCHENAHALLY KEMPANADODDERI POST KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE – 572 128 2. SRI PRASAD S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT KENCHENAHALLY KEMPANADODDERI POST KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE – 572 128 3. SRI BASAVARAJU S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT KENCHENAHALLY KEMPANADODDERI POST KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE – 572 128 4. SRI RAJANNA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT KENCHENAHALLY KEMPANADODDERI POST KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE – 572 128 5. SMT SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT KENCHENAHALLY KEMPANADODDERI POST KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE – 572 128 6. SRI NANDEESHAPPA S/O SIDDANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT SIRA GATE NAGANNANAPALYA TUMKUR TOWN PIN CODE – 572 101 7. THE MANAGER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NEAR TRIBHUVAN TALKIES GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 009 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADV., FOR C/R1; SRI H L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV FOR R7) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:18.08.2014 PASSED IN O.S NO.1055/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., TUMKUR AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.06.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.116/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Respondent Nos.2 to 7 were plaintiff No.2 and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 in the Trial Court. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed the suit before the Trial Court claiming partition and separate possession of their 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff No.1 only. Plaintiff No.2 did not challenge the said judgment and decree. So also except defendant No.5 other defendants did not challenge the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
2. The First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Therefore, judgments and decrees of the Courts below have attained finality so far as plaintiff No.2 and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6.
3. Now plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.5 the purchaser of suit schedule properties have filed compromise petition to settle the matter amongst themselves. Under these circumstances, the presence of other parties for compromise is not found necessary. Therefore, memo is accepted accordingly. Office objection No.2 is complied.
4. Heard on the compromise petition.
5. Appellant and respondent No.1 are present. They are duly identified by the respective counsel. Parties admit the execution of the compromise petition and the said compromise found admissible. Therefore, appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise petition. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are modified in terms of the compromise petition.
Draw decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE KG