P Nagarajachar S/O Late ... vs Sri P Krishnappa S/O Late ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1996 Kant

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

                 R.F.A No.2392/2007
BETWEEN:

 P NAGARAJACHAR
 SON OF LATE PUTTASWAMACHAR
 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
 No.2139, SRI RAMA LAYOUTI MAIN,
 KENGRI SATELLITE TOWN, KENGERI,
 BANGALORE - 560 060.

                                        ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI C V NAGESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SRI P KRISHNAPPA
     S/O LATE PUTTASWAMACHAR
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
     426, 14TH CROSS
     SHASTRI NAGAR, BSK II STAGE
     BANGALORE - 560 028.

2.   SRI P BASAVARAJU
     S/O LATE PUTTASWAMACHAR
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     R/O KONANAKUNTE CROSS
     KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
     J.P.NAGAR POST
     BANGALORE.
                            2




3.   P RAVINDRA
     S/O LATE PUTTASWAMACHAR
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
     SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED
     BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

     (a) SMT. SAVITHA
     W/O LATE P RAVINDRA
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

     (b) MASTER HARISH
     S/O LATE P RAVINDRA
     AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
     MINOR REPRESENTED BY
     HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL
     GUARDIAN SMT.SAVITHA
     W/O LATE P RAVINDRA
     THE L.R.No.3 (a) HEREIN
     BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
     No.1051/1279/A, CHAMUNDESHWARI
     EXTN, 5TH CROSS, RAMANAGARA -571 511.

4.   SMT.KALAMMA
     W/O LATE PUTTASWAMACHAR
     MAJOR, RESIDING AT No.2139,
     SRI RAMA LAYOUT,
     1ST MAIN KENGERI
     SATELLITE TOWN KENGERI,
     BANGALORE - 560 060.

                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI PRADEEP NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1
 R-2, R-3(a), R-3(b)-MINOR REPT. Y R-3(a) ARE SERVED
 AND UNREPRESENTED, V/O DTD. 8.2.2022
 R-4 DELETED)
                             3




     THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.7.2007 PASSED IN
O.S.No.4099/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-32), PARTLY DECREEING
THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

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

                      JUDGMENT

The compromise petition dated 02.02.2022 is

filed jointly by the appellant and the first respondent.

2. It is their submission that the dispute in

respect of suit schedule property is only between the

appellant and the first respondent. Respondent Nos.

2, 3(a) and 3(b) are not claiming any right over the

same.

3. The appellant and the first respondent

along with their respective advocates are present

before the Court and together submitted that they

have agreed for the compromise.

4. The compromise petition is taken on

record.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the

compromise.

Office to draw modified decree accordingly.

However, it is made clear that the compromise being

entered into only by appellant and the first

respondent, it does not bind respondent Nos. 2, 3(a)

and 3(b) and 4.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SSD