Balakrishna Rao Jadav vs Kalpana
2022 Latest Caselaw 3430 Kant

                              1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1261 OF 2015 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

BALAKRISHNA RAO JADAV,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O LATE ARJUN RAO,
R/O BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 001.
(LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ORIGINAL
PLAINTIFF ARJUN RAO JADAV).
                                           ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.GOPAL R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     KALPANA,
       W/O SUBASH RAO SHINDE,
       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

2.     SUBASH RAO SHINDE,
       S/O NARAYANA RAO SHINDE,
       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

3.     GANAPATHI RAO,
       S/O SHANKAR RAO,
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

4.     SHIVAJI RAO,
       S/O RAO SAHEB,
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
       R1 TO 4 ARE
       R/O BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
       DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 001.
                           2




5.   S.H.MADIK,
     S/O HIROBA RAO,
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
     R/O RAMADURGA VILLAGE,
     DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 001.

6.   DILIP RAO JADAV,
     S/O LATE ARJUN RAO JADAV,
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

7.   SMT. SAVITHA,
     W/O LATE GANESH RAO JADAV,
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

8.   VIDYA,
     D/O LATE GANESH RAO JADAV,
     AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,

     SINCE MINOR
     REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER -
     SMT.SAVITHA,
     W/O LATE GANESH RAO,
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
     ABOVE RESPONDENT NO.7,

9.   KAVYA,
     D/O LATE GANESH RAO JADAV,
     AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
     SINCE MINOR
     REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER -
     SMT.SAVITHA,
     W/O LATE GANESH RAO,
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
     ABOVE RESPONDENT NO.7,
     R6 TO 9 ARE
     R/O BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
     DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 001.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    R2 TO R4 SERVED AND REPRESENTED;
    R8 AND R9 ARE MINORS NATURAL GUARDIAN
    R7 SMT.SAVITHA)
                             3




     THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 03.11.2014 PASSED IN RA.NO.82/2010 ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, AT
DAVANAGERE IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2010 PASSED IN
OS. NO.103/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.

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

                    JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

subsequent to the decree passed in O.S.No.103/2007,

respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.648/2011 on the

file of III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Davanagere,

which concerns the property involved in this appeal and

other properties.

2. Learned counsel submitted that the parties

have reported settlement, which is yet to be accepted by

the Court in O.S.No.648/2011. Learned counsel further

submits that in view of the pendency of this appeal, the

acceptance of the compromise before the trial Court in

O.S.No.648/2011 is getting delayed. Therefore, he prays

that this appeal may be disposed off reserving liberty to

the appellant to have the dispute settled in

O.S.No.648/2011.

3. If the parties in this appeal are also litigating in

O.S.No.648/2011 before the III Additional Civil Judge and

JMFC at Davanagere and if the parties have reported the

settlement therein concerning the property which is the

subject matter of this appeal, they are at liberty to settle

the dispute in O.S.N.648/2011.

4. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NR/-