Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jayamma vs Sri Venkatachari on 24 February, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
R.S.A.No.7/2021(DEC/INJ)
C/W
R.S.A.No.3/2021(SP)
C/W
R.S.A.No.5/2021(SP)
In R.S.A.No.7/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE BYRAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
2. SRI. MAYURA.B.,
S/O LATE BYRAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3. SRI. RAJA REDDY.B.,
S/O LATE BYRAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
4. SRI. RAVI.B.,
S/O LATE BYRAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT BANDAKINDAPALLI,
MITTEMARI HOBLI,
BAGEPALLI TALUK. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.SHIVAPRAKASH., ADV.)
2
AND:
1. SRI. VENKATACHARI,
S/O NAJAPPACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT BANDAKINDAPALI,
MITTEMARI HOBLI,
BAGEPALLI TALUK.
AKKULAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LR's
2. SRI. CHINNAPPAREDDY,
S/O LATE KONDAPPAREDDY,
AGED 67 YEARS,
R/AT NALLACHERUVUPALLI VILLAGE,
SADALI HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTATALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
09.09.2020 PASSED IN R.A.No.37/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
CHIKKABALLAPURA ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.02.2016
PASSED IN O.S.No.223/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., AT CHICKBALLAPUR.
In R.S.A.No.3/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE BYRAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
2. SRI. MAYURA.B.,
S/O LATE BYRAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3
3. SRI. RAJA REDDY.B.,
S/O LATE BYRAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
4. SRI. RAVI.B.,
S/O LATE BYRAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT BANDAKINDAPALLI,
MITTEMARI HOBLI,
BAGEPALLITALUK - 561 207.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.SHIVAPRAKASH., ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI. VENKATACHARI,
S/O NANJAPPACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT BANDAKINDAPALI,
MITTEMARI HOBLI,
BAGEPALLI TALUK-561 205.
SMT AKKULAMMA (DEAD BY LR)
2. CHINNAPPAREDDY,
S/O LATE KONDAPPAREDDY,
NALLACHERUVUPALLI,
SADALI HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-561 207.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.09.2020
PASSED IN R.A.No.38/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
CHIKKABALLAPURA ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.02.2016
PASSED IN O.S.No.40/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., CHICKBALLAPUR.
4
In R.S.A.No.5/2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE BYRAREDDY,
AAGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT BANDAKINDAPALLI,
MITTEMARI HOBLI,
BAGEPALLITALUK - 561 207. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADV.)
AND:
SMT. AKKULAMMA(DEAD BY LR)
1. CHINNAPPA REDDY,
S/O LATE KONDAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NALLACHERUVUPALLI,
SADALI HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTATALUK - 562 105.
2. SRI. VENKATACHARI,
S/O NANJAPPACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT BANDAKINDAPALI,
MITTEMARI HOBLI,
BAGEPALLITALUK - 561 207.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
09.09.2020 PASSED IN R.A.No.36/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
CHIKKABALLAPURA ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.02.2016
PASSED IN O.S.No.75/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., CHICKBALLAPUR.
5
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. In order to appreciate the background of this case, the
following undisputed facts would be necessary.
2. Chinnappareddy had two sons Patel Yerappareddy and
Maddireddy.
3. Patel Yerappareddy, the first son, had one son
Byrareddy, who died leaving behind his wife Jayamma.
4. Maddireddy, the second son, died leaving behind his
wife Akkulamma.
5. Maddireddy and Akkulamma had no issues. One
Chinnappareddy is the brother of Akkulamma.
6. The present three second appeals arise out of three
separate suits (OS.No.223/2006, OS.No.40/2006 and
OS.No.75/2005), which have been disposed off by a common
judgment, both by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate
Court.
7. OS.No.75/2005 was filed by Jayamma against
Akkulamma and her brother Chinnappareddy (defendants 1
and 2) seeking for a decree of specific performance in respect
of an Agreement of Sale dated 28.03.2005 executed by
Akkulammaand also for delivering possession. In the said
suit, the subsequent purchaser i.e., Venkatachary has been
arrayed as defendant No.3.
8. OS.No.40/2006 was filed by Venkatachary (defendant
No.3 in OS.No.75/2005) against Jayamma, her children and
Akkulamma for setting aside/cancellation of the decree
passed in RA.No.173/2004 (which arose out of the decree
passed in OS.No.202/2002).
9. OS.No.223/2006 was filed by Jayamma and her
children against Venkatachary and Akkulamma seeking for a
declaration that she was the owner and also for possession of
the suit property and for an injunction against Venkatachary
from interfering with her possession.
10. OS.No.75/2005 filed seeking for specific performance
was decreed as prayed for and the defendants i.e.,
Akkulamma and the subsequent purchaser, Venkatachary
were directed to execute the Sale Deed within a period of four
months.
11. OS.No.40/2006 filed by Venkatachary seeking for
setting aside/cancellation of the decree passed in
RA.No.173/2004 was dismissed.
12. OS.No.223/2006 filed by Jayamma and her sons
seeking for declaration and injunction against Akkulamma
and Venkatachary was decreed.
13. As against the decree directing execution of the Sale
Deed in OS.No.75/2005, Venkatachary filed RA.No.36/2016,
which has been allowed by the Appellate Court.
14. As against the dismissal of OS.No.40/2006,
Venkatachary preferred RA.No.38/2016, which has been
allowed by the Appellate Court.
15. As against the decree declaring Jayammma to be the
owner in OS.No.223/2006, Venkatachary preferred
RA.37/2016 and the Appellate Court has allowed the said
appeal.
16. As against the judgment in RA.No.36/2016,
RSA.5/2021 has been preferred by Jayamma.
17. As against the judgment in RA.No.38/2016,
RSA.3/2021 has been preferred by Jayamma.
18. As against the judgment in RA.No.37/2016,
RSA.7/2021 has been preferred by Jayamma.
19. The very first suit filed was OS.No.75/2005, which was
filed by Jayamma seeking for specific performance of an
Agreement of Sale executed in her favour by Akkulamma and
her brother - Chinnappareddy.
20. If this claim of Jayamma to obtain a conveyance is to
be granted, the decision in the other two suits relating to
cancellation and declaration would become relevant.
21. If, on the other hand, her claim for specific performance
made in OS.No.75/2005 is rejected, obviously, the decree
sought for by Jayamma in OS.No.223/2006 for a declaration
cannot be entertained and as a further consequence, the suit
filed by Venkatachary for cancellation of the compromise
decree, whereby title in favour of Jayamma was conceded by
Akkulamma would become superfluous.
22. As narrated above, Jayamma and Akkulamma were,
admittedly, co-sisters.
23. A brief narration of the past litigation which led to the
present litigation would also be necessary for better
understanding of the present litigation.
24. Before the filing of OS.75/2005, Jayamma had filed
OS.No.202/2002 against Akkulamma seeking for a
declaration that she was the owner of the suit property i.e.,
Sy.No.336 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of Julapalya Village,
Mittemari Hobli, BagepalliTaluk (which is the subject matter
of the present second appeals). The claim of Jayamma over
the said property was on the premise that her husband was in
possession and thereafter, she was in possession in respect of
the suit property for more than the prescribed period, openly,
continuously and peacefully and therefore, she had perfected
her title by way of adverse possession as against Jayamma.
25. The said suit was dismissed. As against the dismissal of
the said suit, an appeal was preferred in RA.No.173/2004.
26. During the pendency of this appeal, Akkulamma had
executed a Sale Deed in favour of Venkatachary on
13.04.2005. Thus, by virtue of this sale, she had no
subsisting title over Sy.No.336.
27. However, on 15.04.2005, i.e., two days after the Sale
Deed was executed, Jayamma filed OS.75/2005 seeking to
enforce the Agreement of Sale dated 28.03.2005.
28. During the pendency of OS.75/2005, despite having
executed a Sale Deed in favour of Venkatachary and thus
having no subsisting title, Akkulamma, nevertheless,
proceeded to file a memo dated 20.12.2005 in RA.173/2004
stating that the matter had been settled with Jayamma and
she was giving up her claim in favour of Jayamma and that
the appeal may be allowed and consequently the suit be
decreed.
29. This memo was accepted and the appeal was allowed
and the suit of Jayamma was decreed. Thus, a declaration
was obtained by consent that Jayamma was the owner of
Sy.No.336 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas.
30. Thus, after a Sale Deed was executed by Akkulamma in
favour of Venkatachary, and during the pendency of OS.
75/2005 which had been filed by Jayamma seeking for
conveyance of title from Akkulamma, Akkulamma filed a
memo conceding the title of Jayamma, which was admittedly
based on adverse possession.
31. Venkatachary, the purchaser from Akkulamma,
therefore, filed OS.No.40/2006 seeking for setting
aside/cancellation of the compromise decree passed in
RA.No.173/2004.
32. After Venkatachary filed the suit seeking for setting
aside/cancellation of the decree which declared Jayamma to
be the owner of Sy.No.336, Jayamma filed OS.223/2006
seeking for declaration that she was the owner and for
injunction.
33. As stated above, the judgment arising out of the claim
for specific performance in OS.75/2005 would have to be first
considered, since the judgments rendered in the other two
suits OS.40/2006 and OS.223/2006 may lose their
significance if it has to be held that the claim of Jayamma for
specific performance was untenable.
34. The facts as stated in OS.No.75/2005 were as follows:
35. Jayamma, in her plaint, stated that Akkulamma and her
brother - Chinnappareddy had together executed an
Agreement of Sale on 28.03.2005 in her favour and had
agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of `90,000/- and
she had paid a sum of `30,000/- as advance. She stated that
Akkulamma and Chinnappareddy had agreed to receive the
remaining `60,000/- within three months and would
thereafter, execute the Sale Deed.
36. It was stated that Jayamma had filed a suit
OS.No.202/2002 against Akkulamma and the same had been
dismissed, against which she had preferred RA.173/2004 and
the same was pending. She thereafter admitted that
Akkulamma was her co-sister and Chinnappareddy was
Akulamma's brother. She went on to state that in view of
close relationship of the parties, at the instance of relatives
and elders, in a Panchayat convened, it had been decided and
settled that since Akkulamma was issueless and was not in a
position to cultivate the suit property, she should enter into a
compromise in the pending RA.No.173/2004 and thereafter,
execute a Sale Deed in favour of Jayamma. It was stated
that her brother Chinnappareddy, who was her custodian and
was taking care of her, had also consented to the said course
of action.
37. It was alleged that Venkatachary had been acting as an
agent of Akkulamma in OS.No.202/2002 and RA.173/2004 on
the basis of a Power of Attorney. It was stated that at the
instance of certain persons who were inimically disposed
against Jayamma, Akkulamma was instigated to sell the
property to Venkatachary for a lesser price than what
Jayamma had consented to pay. It was stated that Jayamma
had demanded Akkulamma to execute a registered Sale Deed
at her cost and she was also offered the remaining
consideration of `60,000/-. However, she was in a hurry to
execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of Venkatachary and
hence, Jayamma was constrained to file a suit for specific
performance.
38. What is to be noticed here is that the Agreement of
Sale was stated to have been executed on 28.03.2005 and in
the said agreement, three months had been fixed for due
performance of the terms of the agreement. Thus, the Sale
Deed was required to be executed on or before 27.06.2005.
However, within a period of 17 days i.e., on 15.04.2005, a
suit (OS.75/2005) was filed by Jayamma seeking for specific
performance.
39. Both Akkulamma and her brother filed a written
statement conceding the plea of Jayamma and stated that
she was entitled to the prayer made in the plaint.
40. Venkatachary, the 3rd defendant in OS.75/2005,
resisted the suit by filing a separate written statement. He
stated that Jayamma in order to knock away the property of
Akkulamma had filed a suit (OS.202/2002) for injunction on
the premise that she was in adverse possession and the said
suit had been dismissed, against which, an appeal had been
preferred in RA.173/2004 by Jayamma. In the said appeal,
her request to restrain Akkulamma from alienating the
property was also rejected on 15.01.2015. He stated that
Akkulamma had been suffering from ill health and as a result,
she had incurred loans and since she was facing financial
distress, she decided to sell the suit property and
Venkatachary, who had been entrusted with conducting
OS.202/2002 on the basis of Power of Attorney, was
approached, instead of offering the land to others, and
Venkatachary accepted the said offer and agreed to purchase
the suit property for a total sale consideration of `30,000/-
which was paid before the witnesses on 13.04.2005 and as a
consequence, a Sale Deed was also registered in his favour
and he was also put in possession of the suit property. He
stated that ever since he was in possession and enjoyment of
the suit property. He also stated that for the past 20 years,
the relationship between Jayamma and the family of
Akkulamma had become strained and this was because
Akkulamma had filed a suit against Jayamma's husband
Byrareddy and his mother Muddakka for partition in
OS.168/1989. It was stated that the said suit was
compromised and she had been allotted the suit property
along with certain other lands and 4 ankanams house in 24
ankanams house and was also paid cash. It was also stated
that Akkulamma had got khata changed in her favour and
was enjoying the suit property in her absolute name. It was
stated that in order to knock away the property, Jayamma
had filed OS.202/2002 against Akkulamma seeking for a
decree of injunction on the basis of adverse possession, which
had ended in a dismissal. It was alleged that Jayamma's
intention was that till Akkulamma was alive there should be
litigation pending before a Court of law, so that she could
knock away the property. It was stated that during the life
time of Akkulamma she had executed a registered Will in
favour of Chinnappareddy and since he had also not looked
after her, she got the Will cancelled and sold the property to
Venkatachary and hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
41. The Trial Court, on consideration of evidence adduced
before it, came to the conclusion that Jayamma had proved
that Akkulamma and her brother Chinnappareddy had
executed an Agreement of Sale on 28.03.2005 agreeing to
sell the suit property for `90,000/- and had paid `30,000/- as
advance. The Trial Court also held that Jayamma had proved
that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of
the contract and she was entitled to a decree of specific
performance.
42. The Trial Court accordingly decreed the suit filed for
specific performance and directed the defendants to execute
the Sale Deed in favour of Jayamma within four months.
43. As stated above, the other two suits filed by
Venkatachary and Jayamma were also clubbed and the suit
filed by Venkatachary in OS.40/2006 was dismissed and the
suit filed by Jayamma seeking for a declaration that she was
the owner was decreed by the same judgment.
44. Venkatachary, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal
against the decree granted in favour of Jayamma in respect
of the decree for specific performance and also against the
dismissal of his suit in OS.40/2006 and decreeing
OS.223/2006 in favour of Jayamma.
45. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of entire
evidence, came to the conclusion that the Trial Court was not
justified in coming to the conclusion that Jayamma had
proved the execution of the Agreement of Sale in her favour
and that Akkulamma had received `30,000/- out of total
agreed sale consideration of `90,000/-. The Appellate Court
also held that Jayamma had not proved that she was ready
and willing to perform her part of the contract. The Appellate
Court accordingly reversed the decree granted in favour of
Jayamma and dismissed OS.75/2005 filed by her seeking for
specific performance.
46. By the very same judgment, the Appellate Court also
allowed the other two appeals filed by Venkatachary and
decreed the suit OS.40/2006 filed by him seeking for
cancellation/setting aside the decree in OS.202/2002 and also
dismissed OS.223/2006 filed by Jayamma seeking for
declaration.
47. It is against this common judgment and decree passed
in respect of the three appeals, the present set of appeals
have been preferred.
48. As noticed above, the Agreement of Sale was dated
28.03.2005 and three months time had been fixed for
performance of contract. However, the suit was filed within a
period of 17 days. Admittedly, filing of the suit was not
preceded by issuance of any legal notice.
49. It is not in dispute that Jayamma initially put forth a
claim that her husband Byrareddy was in possession adverse
to the interest of Akkulamma and after his death, she
continued this adverse possession and was thus entitled for
protection of her possession. It is to be stated here that
though they claimed that they were in adverse possession
when they filed OS.202/2002, the Agreement of Sale which
Jayamma had secured contained a recital that Akkulamma
was in possession of the suit property. In fact, even in the
suit for specific performance, a specific prayer to direct the
defendants i.e., Akkulamma, her brother Chinnappareddy and
Venkatachary to deliver possession of the plaint schedule
property was made.
50. It is, therefore, clear that Jayamma had been taking
stands which were in conflict with each other, in the sense,
that in the year 2002, she claimed she was in adverse
possession and thereafter, she proceeded to put forth the
plea that an Agreement of Sale had been executed in her
favour in which it was admitted by her that possession was
with Akkulamma and she was entitled for a decree of
possession in the suit filed by her for specific performance.
These contradictory stands establish that the conduct of
Jayamma was improper and designed to usurp the land of her
co-sister Akkulamma.
51. Admittedly, Akkulamma executed the Sale Deed in
favour of Venkatachary on 13.04.2005. Within a period of two
days, i.e., on 15.04.2005, notwithstanding the fact the
Agreement of Sale stipulated three months to conclude the
sale transaction and there was still about 1 ½ months
remaining, Jayamma instituted a suit in OS.No.75/2005
seeking to enforce the Agreement of Sale dated 28.03.2005.
This suit was not preceded by issuance of any legal notice
and the cause for filing the suit as stated in the plaint was
that she offered to pay the remaining consideration of
`60,000/-, but Akkulamma was in a hurry to execute the Sale
Deed in favour of Venkatachary and hence, she was
constrained to file the suit.
52. In the plaint, there is an indirect reference that persons
inimically disposed against her were instigating Akkulamma
to sell the properties to third parties preferably to
Venkatachary. Thus, these facts, if read together, would
indicate that Jayamma wanted to ensure that Akkulamma
should not be entitled to enjoy her property and that she
should gain control over the suit property. This is obviously
because her co-sister Akkulamma had no issues and she was
anxious that the property be not alienated to third parties and
if the same were to be alienated, it should be alienated to her
alone.
53. The fact that this Agreement of Sale was entered into
during the pendency of RA.173/2004 also creates a serious
doubt as to whether Akkulamma had in fact agreed to convey
the suit property. This suspicion gets amplified by the fact
that after the Sale Deed was executed in favour of
Venkatachary, a memo was filed by Akkulamma conceding
that Jayamma had perfected her title by adverse possession.
The entire sequence of events, if seen collectively, clearly
indicates that Jayamma and Akkulamma, who were at war
with each other, had dissolved their differences and
thereafter as soon as Akkulamma conveyed the property to
Venkatachary, both of them teamed up to defeat the right of
Venkatachary. The Appellate Court has taken note of these
facts and has come to the conclusion that the execution of
Agreement of Sale even if it was held to be proved, it would
not be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance.
54. The Appellate Court has also noticed that the plaint did
not even contain the necessary averments regarding
readiness and willingness and the fact that no notice was
issued also indicated that there was no readiness and
willingness. In my view, this finding recorded by the Appellate
Court cannot be found fault with at all.
55. The Appellate Court has noticed that the assertion that
Akkulamma was not well and could not have executed the
Sale Deed on 13.04.2005 was not established by the
production of any credible documents. The only document
that was produced regarding the ill-health of Akkulamma,
stated that Akkulamma had been admitted on 11.04.2005 for
severe anemia, giddiness, loss of consciousness, loss of
memory, itching of both upper limbs and after treatment, she
was discharged within two days i.e., on 13.04.2005 itself.
The fact that Akkulamma was discharged within a period of
two days indicates that she did not suffer from any serious
ailment which could have precluded her from executing the
Sale Deed in favour of Venkatachary.
56. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended
that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had committed
an error in trying all the three suits together since there was
conflict of interest involved. The dispute involved in all the
three suits were in relation to the very same land in which
Venkatachary claimed ownership on the basis of a Sale Deed
executed by Akkulamma, while Jayamma claimed title
through a decree of specific performance. The Trial Court and
the Appellate Court was, therefore, justified in clubbing the
suits and conducting a common trial.
57. In my view, the contentions advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellants lack any merit. The Appellate Court
was justified in refusing the plea for specific performance and
has rightly allowed the appeal of Venkatachary. There is no
substantial question of law, as such arising for consideration
in RSA.5/2021 (which arose out of OS.75/2005 and
RA.36/2016).
58. As far as OS.223/2006 filed by Jayamma seeking for a
declaration and injunction is concerned, this suit would not be
maintainable at all since as on the date of filing of the suit
i.e., on 18.10.2006, Jayamma was still seeking for
conveyance of title from Akkulamma and had instituted a suit
in OS.No.75/2005. It was only after the decree in
OS.No.75/2005 was granted to her and a Sale Deed was
registered in her favour could Jayamma claim title over the
suit property. The said suit, therefore, could not have been
entertained at all. Consequently, the Appellate Court was
justified in allowing the appeal filed by Venkatachary and
dismissing the said suit. There is thus, no substantial
question of law arising for consideration in RSA.7/2021
(which arose out of OS.223/2006 and RA.37/2016) also.
59. As far as RSA.3/2021 is concerned, this second appeal
has been preferred against the suit filed by Venkatachary
seeking for a declaration that the compromise entered into
between Jayamma and Akkulamma in RA.173/2004 was
fraudulent. As already stated above, Akkulamma after
conveying the suit property on 13.04.2005 in favour of
Venkatachary had proceeded to file a memo conceding that
Jayamma had acquired title by way of adverse possession in
a suit which had been instituted for injunction based on
adverse possession. It is, therefore, clear that on the basis of
this memo, Jayamma could not have been declared to be the
owner. As a necessary consequence, the plea of
Venkatachary to annul the said compromise was rightly
required to be accepted and the Appellate Court has rightly
accepted the said plea and decreed his suit. As such, there is
no substantial question of law arises for consideration in
RSA.3/2021 (which arose out of OS.40/2006 and
RA.38/2016).
60. In the result, all the three second appeals are
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS
