Karnataka High Court
Kariyavvaw/O. Vanakerappa Ihoji vs Basappa S/O. Ningappa ... on 10 March, 2021
Author: K. Somshekhar M.I.Arun
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
RFA No.4226/2013 (PAR)
Between:
Smt. Kariyavva W/o. Vanakerappa Ihoji,
Age 68 years, Occ: House works,
R/o.: Tumminakatti, Tq.: Ranebennur,
Dist.: Haveri, Pin: 581115.
... Appellant
(By Shri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, Advocate)
And:
1. Basappa S/o. Ningappa Tirukannanavar,
Age 66 years, occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Tumminakatti, Tq.: Ranebennur,
Dist.: Haveri, Pin: 581115.
2. Ramappa S/o. Basappa Tirukannanavar,
Age 38 years, occ: Govt. Service,
R/o.: Tumminakatti, Tq.: Ranebennur,
Dist.: Haveri, Pin: 581115.
3. Dyamappa S/o. Basappa Tirukannanavar,
Age 36 years, occ: Govt. Service,
R/o.: Tumminakatti, Tq.: Ranebennur,
Dist.: Haveri, Pin: 581115.
4. Manjappa S/o. Basappa Tirukannanavar,
Age 32 years, occ: Govt. Service,
R/o.: Tumminakatti, Tq.: Ranebennur,
Dist.: Haveri, Pin: 581115.
-2-
5. Halappa S/o. Siddappa Kirager,
Since deceased by L.Rs.
5(a) Smt. Shanthawwa W/o. Halappa Kirger,
Age 40 years, OcC: Household & Agriculture,
R/o.: Hade, Post Tumminakatti,
Tq.: Ranebennur, Dist.: Haveri.
5(b) Smt. Rekha W/o. Manjappa Adinavar,
Age 22 years, Occ: House work,
R/o.: Bullapur, Post Tumminakatti,
Tq.: Ranebennur, Dist.: Haveri.
5(c) Ramesh S/o. Halappa Kirger,
Age 21 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Hade, Post Tumminakatti,
Tq.: Ranebennur, Dist.: Haveri.
5(d) Raja S/o. Halappa Kirger,
Age 20 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Hade, Post Tumminakatti,
Tq.: Ranebennur, Dist.: Haveri.
5(e) Anjaneya S/o. Halappa Kirger,
Age 19 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Hade, Post Tumminakatti,
Tq.: Ranebennur, Dist.: Haveri.
6. Yallavva W/o.Duragappa Adinavar,
Age 50 years, Occ: House hold,
R/o.: Ballapur, Now at Hade,
Tq.: Hirekerur, Dist.: Haveri.
... Respondents
(By Shri Aravind D. Kulkarni, Advocate for R1 to R4;
R5(a) to R5(e) and R6 are deleted v/o dated 10.03.2021)
This RFA is filed under Section 96 read with Order 41
Rule 1 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated
07.10.2013, passed in O.S.No.38/2011 on the file of the
Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Ranebennur, partly decreeing
the suit filed for partition.
This appeal coming on for orders through physical
hearing, this day, M.I. Arun, J., delivered the following:
-3-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree
dated 07.10.2013, passed in O.S.No.38/2011 by the Addl.
Senior Civil Judge at Ranebennur by the plaintiff therein.
The said suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition and
separate possession in respect of the suit schedule
properties. The trial Court has partly allowed the suit. Not
satisfied by the same, the plaintiff therein has preferred
this appeal.
2. The appellant is the sister, respondent No.1 is
her brother and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the children of
respondent No.1. Respondent No.5 since deceased by his
L.Rs. respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(e) and 6 are said to be
distant relatives of the appellant and respondent No.1.
3. In the course of the proceedings, upon the
request of the parties, the matter was referred to
Mediation. In the mediation, the appellant and respondent
Nos.1 to 4 have participated. The parties have arrived at a
compromise and A memorandum of agreement under
Section 89 of the C.P.C. read with Rules 24 and 25 of the
Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2007, dated
22.02.2021 is filed. The same is signed by the appellant,
respondent No.1, advocate for appellant and the advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 4. The same is taken on record.
4. Admittedly, respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(e) and 6
have not participated in the mediation proceedings nor are
they represented by an advocate before this Court, even
after being duly served.
5. Today, a joint memo by the appellant and
respondent Nos.1 to 4 is filed before the Court, wherein
they have stated that respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(e) and 6
are formal parties and they have sought for deletion of
their names.
6. The memo is placed on record and is accepted.
Respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(e) and 6 are deleted subject to
the risk and cost of the appellant.
7. The memo also states that respondent Nos.2 to
4 are the children of respondent No.1 and they have also
consented for settlement and bound by the terms of the
compromise.
8. The appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 4 are
present before the Court and are duly identified by their
respective advocates and state that they agree for the said
compromise.
9. The memorandum of agreement arrived at
before the Mediation Center records the respective rights
of the parties in respect of the suit schedule properties.
10. The same is taken on record. The same is
accepted and the appeal is disposed of in terms of the
compromise.
Final decree proceeding to be drawn accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
