IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.278 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI. V. KRISHNA REDDY SON OF LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.3333, VISHRUTHA KRISHNA NILAYA 1ST MAIN, C BHYREGOWDANAGAR KOLAR-563 101. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE FOR MS. SANJANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. M.N. ANASUYA WIFE OF LATE S KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. SRI. AJAY KRISHNA SON OF LATE S KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 3. KUMARI KRUPAKRISHNA DAUGHTER OF LATE S. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN THE MOTHER, THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN ALL ARE TOGETHER RESIDING AT NO.96 1ST A MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS C BHYREGOWDA NAGAR KOLAR-563 101. ... RESPONDENTS (SRI. M. NARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2016 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.111 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR. DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT In terms of the order dated 21.08.2019, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has filed the amended plaint.
2. The parties submit that since there are certain typographical errors in the compromise petition filed on 19.08.2019, the same could be returned. It is also submitted that a fresh compromise petition is being filed in the Court today. Under these circumstances, the compromise petition filed before this Court dated 19.08.2019 is directed to be returned.
3. At this stage, IA No.2 of 2019 is filed under Order 32 Rule 7(2) of Civil Procedure Code by the respondents. Respondent No.1 has stated on affidavit that she is the mother of the third respondent. That the third respondent is now aged 17 years and is a minor. Respondent No.1 further submits that her husband passed away in the year 2011. Therefore, she is the only guardian of the third respondent . Certificate has also been filed by counsel appearing for respondent No.3 along with I.A.No.2 of 2019, stating that respondent No.3, the minor also gets equal share in the schedule properties and the compromise proposed by the parties is in the interest of respondent No.3, the minor. There is no objection by the appellants.
4. For the reasons assigned, the application is allowed. She is permitted to enter into the compromise on behalf of her minor daughter viz., third respondent/third plaintiff.
5. The compromise petition filed in the Court today is taken on record. The said compromise petition is signed by the appellant, respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.1 has also signed on behalf of respondent No.3 being her mother and guardian. The appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are present in the Court. They are identified by the respective counsels. They have divided the properties in terms of the compromise petition.
6. A cheque is handed over by the appellant in favour of respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.66,00,000/- in the Court today. The same is acknowledged by respondent No.1 who is present in the Court.
7. On considering the same, we are of the view that the said compromise is legal and is in the interest of parties. Hence, the compromise petition is accepted. The judgment and decree of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar dated 30.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.111 of 2015 is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of the present compromise petition. Office to draw final decree in terms of the compromise petition.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE akc/