Karnataka High Court
Ramanagouda S/O Basanagouda ... vs Basanagouda S/O Mahadevagouda ... on 1 December, 2021
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, S Rachaiah
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
R.F.A.NO.100265/2017
(Partn., Declrn. & Sep. Possn.)
BETWEEN
1. RAMANAGOUDA
S/O BASANAGOUDA CHAVANAGOUDAR
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: INGALAHALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.-580001
2. SMT.NEELAVVA
W/O BASANAGOUDA CHAVANAGOUDAR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: INGALAHALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.-580001
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUMANGALA A.CHAKALABBI, ADV.)
AND
1. BASANAGOUDA
S/O MAHADEVAGOUDA CHAVANGOUDA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS.
ALREADY ON RECORD AS
APPELLANT NO.1, 2 AND RESPONDENT NO.2
2
2. SMT.YALLAWWA
W/O MAHADEVAGOUDA CHAVANAGOUDAR,
AGE: 87 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: INGALAHALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.-580001
3. SHRIDHAR S/O MAHADEVAPPA NARAGUND,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SIDDARTH NAGAR, GOPANAKOPPA,
TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.-580001
4. SMT.MANJULA W/O SHRIDAR NARAGUND
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SIDDARTH NAGAR, GOPANAKOPPA,
TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.-580001
5. PARAVVA CALLING HERSELF AS A
W/O BASANAGOUDA CHAVANAGOUDAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALGHATAGI,
DIST: DHARWAD.-580001
6. ISHWARAGOUDA CALLING HIMSELF AS A
S/O BASANAGOUDA CHAVANAGOUDAR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALGHATAGI,
DIST: DHARWAD.-580001
7. SHANKARAGOUDA CALLING HIMSELF AS A
S/O BASANAGOUDA CHAVANAGOUDAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALGHATAGI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001
8. SMT.LAXMAVVA
W/O SANKANAGOUDA CHAVANGOUDAR,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOIUSEHOLD WORK,
3
R/O: INGALAHALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001
9. UMESHGOUDA
S/O SANKANAGOUDA CHAVANGOUDAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: INGALAHALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.-580001
10. GANGAMMA
D/O SANKANAGOUDA CHAVANGOUDAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: INGALAHALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.-580001
11. MANTESH
S/O SANKANAGOUDA CHAVANGOUDAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: INGALAHALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001
12. SMT.NINGAVVA
W/O MARIGOUDA BHARAMAGOUDA,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: PALE, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001
1. RAJESAB S/O. KHASIMSHAB BELAGERI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. #14 KHB COLONY, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI.
.....RESPONDENTS
(R-1 viz., BASANAGOUDA S/O MAHADEVAGOUDA
CHAVANGOUDA SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS WHO ARE
ALREADY ON RECORD AS APPELLANTS NO.1, 2 & R-2;
APPEAL AGAINST R-2 TO R-11 IS DISMISSED;
R-12 IS DELETED;
BY SRI VISHWANATH BHAT, ADV. FOR R-13 i.e.,
4
SRI RAJESAB S/O. KHASIMSHAB BELAGERI WHO IS
RENUMBERED AS R-1)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 READ WITH
ORDE XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DTD:12.07.2017 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.89/2015 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION & DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel Sri Vishwanath Bhat files vakalath
on behalf of the respondent No.13 and the same is taken
on record.
2. Counsel for the appellants files a memo
seeking dismissal of the appeal as against respondents
No.2 to 11. Accordingly, in light of the memo, the appeal
as against respondents No.2 to 11 stands dismissed.
3. It is submitted that the defendant No.12 was
ordered to be deleted before the trial Court as per the
order dated 03.04.2017. Accordingly, the present
proceedings are only as against respondents No.1 to 11.
It is further submitted that the original respondent No.1
had died during the pendency of the appeal and that the
legal representatives of respondent No.1 are already on
record as appellant Nos.1 and 2 who may be treated as
legal representatives of respondent No.1. The said facts
are taken note of.
4. The appellants No.1 and 2 and respondent
No.13 are present.
5. In light of the order of the dismissal of the
appeal as against respondents No.2 to 11, the appeal
proceedings are only between appellants No.1 and 2 and
respondent No.13 who is now renumbered as respondent
No.1.
6. The compromise petition has been filed and in
terms of the compromise petition while there is an
affirmation of the impugned judgment and decree, there is
a settlement only insofar as the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 who
are appellants No.1 and 2 and respondent No.13 who
stated to be the subsequent purchaser. The respondent
No.13 who is now renumbered as respondent No.1 is
relinquishing an extent of 2 acres in favour of the
appellants No.1 and 2 who are the plaintiffs before the trial
Court. The details of the extent of relinquishment are as
contained in paragraph 5 of the compromise petition.
7. Compromise petition having been read out and
explained to the parties, the parties upon enquiry admit
the terms of the compromise petition and as regards to
their subscription of the signature/thumb impression to the
compromise petition. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed
off in terms of the compromise petition while affirming the
judgment and decree of the trial Court.
8. The necessary amendment to be carried out to
the cause title reflecting the dismissal of the appeal as
against respondent No.2 to 11, deletion of respondent
No.12, respondent No.13 to be renumbered as respondent
No.1.
9. Registry to take note of the said amendments
while drawing up the decree.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Naa
