IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA R.F.A.NO.1798 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SULOCHANAMMA W/O VEERABASAPPPA 63 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/A KARIGNUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 002.
2. SMT. LOKAMMA W/O LATE BASAPPA, R/A TUPPADAHALLI VILLAGE SINCE DEAD BY LRs.
(a) RUDRESHAPPA, S/O LATE BASAPPA THUPPADAHALLI VILLAGE, SINCE DEAD BY LRs.
a(i) SATISHA C.R.
S/O LATE RUDRESHAPPA, 27 YEARS, R/O THUPPADAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISRICT-577 501.
A(ii) ROOPA W/O ONKARAPPA 23 YEARS, R/O HULLIBAR VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 802.
(b) AMBUJAMMA W/O LATE GANGADARAPPA 42 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O BHANUVALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 002.
(BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND , ADVOCATE) AND:
1. K.M. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O KAYAKADA MURGEPPA, 71 YEARS, RETIRED TEACHER R/O LOKIKERE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK-577 002, 2. B. RUDRAPPA S/O OBBALAPPA 43 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O LOKIKERE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK 577 002 3. KOTRAPPA RAMAPPA, S/O LATE BASAPPA 53 YEARS,AGRICULTURIST R/O LOKIKERE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK-577 002 …APPELLANTS 4. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O ROSAPPALA HANUMANTHAPPA AGED 29 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O LOKIKERE VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK, (Respts. No.2 to 4 are deleted vide Court order dt.31.10.2017) 5. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O K.M. SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS LOKIKERE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK .
(BY SHRI B.R. PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR M/S RAMBHAT AND SRIPAD ASSTS. FOR R.1.) . ... RESPONDENTS ***** THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.4.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.73/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II- ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is listed for reporting settlement and for considering I.A.No.2/17, which is filed for Early Hearing.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents jointly submit that the parties to this appeal have settled their inter se dispute and are filing a Compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). They further submit that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court.
3. The appellants herein had filed O.S.No.73/2009 before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of their respective shares in the suit schedule properties. By judgment dated 20.04.2012, the said suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiffs have preferred this Regular First Appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the respective parties have negotiated a settlement and they have filed the Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.
4. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that, the parties are present in Court and they have identified them. The parties to the settlement jointly submit that, they have resolved the disputes in terms of the compromise arrived at between them. The said terms have been arrived at on their own volition, without there being any coercion or force from any quarter. They submit that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise.
5. The Compromise Petition is taken on record. It is noted that the parties to the appeal have signed the terms along with their respective counsel.
6. Learned counsel for the respective parties , therefore submit that, the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise. The same reads as under:
“The parties in the above proceedings are submit as follows:
1. The appellants in the above appeal filed the suit in O.S.73/2009 on the file of 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere and sought the relief of declaration that the partition deed dated 03.07.2001 is unfair and unjust, further sought to allot the equal share to the plaintiffs in the schedule properties. The said suit came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Court of 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere as per the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs/appellants have preferred the above appeal.
2. At the intervention of the elders and well- wishers the parties above named have amicably settled their differences as follows;
3. The plaintiffs/appellants have confirmed that by virtue of the registered partition deed dated 03.07.2001 vide document No.3004/2001-02 Book No.1, Volume No.2793, Page 140–145 registered in the office of the Sr. Sub Registrar, Davanagere, the defendant No.1, Sri K.M. Shivalingappa had been allotted with the land in Sy.No.178 measuring to an extent of 22 acres, Sy.No.134/1 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas, Sy.No.136/P measuring to an extent of 0-02 guntas, property bearing No.381,377,384 and 581, all are situated at Lokikere Village, Mayakonda Hobli, Davanagere Taluk and that he is entitled to enjoy the same as absolute owner thereof in terms of the partition deed.
4. In order to resolve the issue among the parties herein, the 1st respondent herein agreed to pay the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of D.D., bearing No.952277039 dated 30.10.2017 in favour of Smt. Sulochanamma-the 1st appellant herein and in favour of Satish C.R. S/o Late Rudreshappa-Appellant No.2(a)(i) by way of D.D. bearing No.952277041 dated 30.10.2017 and Ambujamma @ Ambujakshamma W/o Late Gangadharappa-2(b) by way of D.D. bearing No.952277040 who are the LRs of Smt. Lokamma the 2nd appellant herein, all the above DD’s are drawn on Vijaya Bank, P.B. Road, Davanagere, and all appellants have acknowledged the receipt of the same.
5. In terms of the above compromise, the appellants conceded that the registered partition deed dated 03.07.2001 is fair and reasonable and that the respondents are entitled to deal with the properties allotted to them in any manner they deems fit.
6. Both the parties confirmed that there is no mutual claim of any kind and all disputes among the parties are hereby resolved as per this compromise.
In the circumstances, the impugned judgment of the trial court is set aside. This appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise.
Office is directed to draw Final Decree accordingly.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/17 stands disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE Psg*