M P Manohar vs Poornima M P
2022 Latest Caselaw 11418 Kant

                             1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                          BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

               R.S.A.NO.783 OF 2019 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

M P MANOHAR
S/O M.S. PARAMASHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.

                                               ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI JAGANNATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. POORNIMA M P
W/O JAGADEESH C.N.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT SBM BADAVANE, CHELUR,
GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.

2. P. ASHA
W/O MAHESH
MAJOR
R/O DODDAHOSAHALLI, PURAVARA HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
                               2


3. M.S. PARAMA SHIVAIAH
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.

                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI GIRISH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
R3 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

      THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.01.2019 PASSED IN
RA.NO.37/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 21.09.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.08/2016 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI AND
ETC.,

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

The captioned second appeal is filed by the defendant

No.2 questioning the preliminary decree granting 1/4th share

each to the plaintiffs.

2. Pending appeal, it is reported that defendant No.1

M.S.Paramashivaiah has passed away and now there are only

three sharers i.e., two daughters and one brother.

3. The sole defendant and plaintiffs together have

filed a joint compromise petition thereby reporting that they

have agreed to divide the properties. At para 10, the details

of allotment of properties to the respective parties are

reflected. When this Court posed a question to the plaintiffs

as well as sole defendant, they made a voluntarily statement

indicating that they have amicably compromised by taking

their respective shares in terms of para 10 of the compromise

petition. They would submit that compromise is entered into

by them voluntarily.

4. Both the parties are present before the Court and

are identified by their respective counsel. The said

compromise is lawful and the same is entered into out of their

free will and consent. None of the parties who are signatories

to the compromise petition have complained any duress,

coercion or undue influence. This compromise petition is

admitted and is taken on record.

5. Accordingly, appeal stands disposed of in terms of

the compromise petition.

Office to draw final decree in terms of the compromise

petition.

The pending interlocutory applications do not survive for

consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA