Karnataka High Court
Smt.Bhanumathi vs Smt. R Yashoda on 29 June, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NO.85 OF 2021
C/W
REVIEW PETITION No. 22 OF 2021
IN R.P. No. 85/2021
BETWEEN
SMT. BHANUMATHI
W/O S. MANJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO. 88, 2ND CROSS
2ND MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H. SUNIL KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. R YASHODA
W/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.16, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
H V R LAYOUT,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 013.
2. SMT.K P SATHYABHAMA
W/O LATE GUNDAPPAJI
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/AT MAVNOOR VILLAGE,
HUNSAVALLI POST,
OPP. HOLETHIMMANAHALLI,
ALUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 213.
2
3. SRI. H G MITHUN
S/O LATE GUNDAPPAJI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT MAVNOOR VILLAGE,
HUNSAVALLI POST,
OPP. HOLETHIMMANAHALLI,
ALUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 213.
4. SRI. H G SINTHA
D/O LATE GUNDAPPAJI
W/O H M ARUNKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.841, 9TH CROSS,
10TH MAIN, I.T.I. LAYOUT,
MALLATHALLI, NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE-560073.
5. SRI. H G IMPA
D/O LATE H G GUNDAPPAJI
W/O KIRAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.898, 9TH A CROSS,
11TH MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BANGALORE-560 037.
6. SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT SY.NO.66/1A2,
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
7. SMT.A NIRMALABAI
W/O LATE LINGJIRAO
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.19/2, SY.NO.66/1A2,
6TH MAIN, 1 B MAIN ROAD, HVR LAYOUT,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 013.
8. SMT. L GAYATHRI
D/O LATE LINGOJIRAO
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
3
R/AT NO.19/2, SY.NO.66/1A2,
6TH MAIN, 1 B MAIN ROAD,
HVR LAYOUT,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560013.
9. SRI. L KIRANRAO
S/O LATE LINGOJIRAO
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/2, SY.NO.66/1A2,
6TH MAIN, 1ST B MAIN ROAD,
HVR LAYOUT,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560013.
10 . SRI. DHANAKOTI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT SY.NO.66/1A2,
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 011.
SINCE DECEASED RESPONDENT NO
15 AS THE LR'S OF DECEASED
RESPONDENT NO.10 V/O/DT: 10.03.2022.
11 . SRI. BABUSHAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT SY.NO.66/1A2,
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560011.
VIDE ORDER DATED 10.03.2022 RESPONDENT
NO 11(A) TO 11(F) ARE THE LR'S OF DECEASE LR'S.
11(A) SMT. SARASWATHI
W/O LATE SRI BABUSHA
AGED ABOUTU 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT 17, KHANESHMARI NO. 1136
SY NO. 66/1A2 SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 011.
11(B) MR. BHUSHAN SHA.B
4
S/O LATE SRI. BABHUSHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING ATNO. 163 2ND CROSS
MUNESHWARA LAYOUT
BHARATHNAGAR II STAGE
BADARAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 091.
11(c) MR. HARISH.B
S/O LATE SRI. BABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 17, KHANESHMARI NO. 1136
SY NO. 66/1A2, SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 011.
11(D) MR. PRAKASH B
S/O LATE BABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 17, KHANESHMARI NO. 1136
SY NO. 66/1A2, SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 011.
11(E) SMT. LATHA.B
D/O LATE SRI. BABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 17, KHANESHMARI NO. 1136
SY NO. 66/1A2, SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 011.
11(F) SMT. GEEHTA B
D/O LATE SRI. BABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
DOOR NO. 5/1, 21ST CROSS
MARIYAPPA PALYA
K.P. AGRAHARA
BENGALURU - 560 023.
12 . SRI. LAKSHMANA
R/AT NO.70, H V R LAYOUT,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560013.
5
13 . SRI. PRAKASH
S/O SIDDALINGAIAH
R/AT NO.2472, 7TH B MAIN,
II STAGE, R P C LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 014.
14 . SMT. SUMANGALA
D/O SIDDALINGAIAH
R/AT NO.2472,
7TH B MAIN II STAGE
R P C LAYOUT,VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 014.
15 . SMT. ANASUYA
W/O DHANAKOTI
R/AT SY.NO.66/1A2,
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560011.
16 . SRI. G RAMACHANDRA
S/O H GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.111, JUGANAHALLI,
II BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.L.N. MURTHY.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1
SRI. K.M. SANATH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5
SMT. B.V. VIDYALATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R-11 (A-F) IN IA 2/21
R-6 TO R-9, R-12 TO R-16 SERVED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC
PRAYING TO 1. REVIEW THE ORDER DATED: 07.01.2020 IN RFA NO.
399/2014 C/W 196/2015 AND RESTORE THE FILE IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
IN R.P. No. 22/2021
BETWEEN
BHANUMATHI
W/O S. MANJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
6
R/AT NO. 88, 2ND CROSS
2ND MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H. SUNIL KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SARASWATHI
W/O LATE SRI. BABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
NO. 17, KHANESHMANI NO. 1136
SY NO. 66/1A2, SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 079.
2. BHUSHAN SHA.B
S/O LATE SRI. BABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 163, 2ND CROSS
MUNESHWARA LAYOUT
BHARATH NAGAR 2ND STAGE
BADARAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 091.
3. HARISHA.B
S/O LATE SRIBABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT 17, KANESHMARI NO. 1136
SY NO. 66/11A2
SANEGURAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YASHVANTHAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 079.
4. PRAKASH.B.
S/O LATE SRI. BABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO. 17 KANESHMARI NO. 1136, SY NO. 66/1A2
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 079.
5. LATHA.B
D/O LATE SRI. BABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
NO. 17 KANESHMARI NO. 1136, SY NO. 66/1A2
7
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 079.
6. GEETHAR.B
D/O LATE SRI. BABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
DOOR NO. 5/1, 21ST CROSS
MARIYAPPANAPALYA
K.P. AGRAHARA
BENGALURU - 560 023.
7. SMT. K.P. SATHYABHAMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
W/O LATE SRI. GUNDAPPAJI
RESIDING AT MAVANOOR VILLAGE
HUNASAVALLI POST
OPPHOLETHIMMANAHALLI
ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 532 001.
8. SRI. H.G. MITHUN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O LATE SRIGUNDAPPAJI
RESIDING AT MAVANOOR VILLAGE
HUNASAVALLI POST
OPPHOLETHIMMANAHALLI
ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 532 001.
9. SRI. H.G. SMITHA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
D/O LATE SRI. H.R. GUNDAPPAJI
W/O SRI. H.R. ARUNKUMAR
RESIDING AT NO. 41, 9TH CROSS
10TH MAIN, ITI LAYOUT
MALLATHALLI, NAGARABHAVI
BENGALURU - 560 056.
10. SMT. H.G. IMPHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
D/O LATE SRIGUNDAPPAJI
W/O SRIKIRAN
RESIDING AT NO. 898, 9TH A CROSS
11TH MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD
MAHALAKSHMI PURAM
8
BENGALURU - 560 086.
11. SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
FATHER NAME NOT KNOW
RESIDING AT SY NO. 66/1A2
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TLAUK - 560 079.
VIDE ORDER DATED: 10.03.2022 RESPONDENT
NO. 17 & 18 ARE LR'S OF DECEASED
RESPONDENT NO. 11.
12. SMT. NIRMALA BAI
AGE MAJOR
W/O LATE LINGOJI RAO
RESIDING AT: NO. 19/2, SY NO. 66/1A2
6TH MAIN, 1ST B CROSS, HVR LAYOUT
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 040.
13. SMT. L. GAYATHRI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
D/O ALT SRILINGOJI ROAD
RESIDING AT : NO. 19/2, SY NO. 66/1A2
6TH MAIN, 1ST B CROSS, HVR LAYOUT
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENAGLURU - 560 040.
14. SRI. L KIRAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O LATE SRILINGOJIRAO
RESIDING AT NO. 19/2, SY NO. 66/61A2
6TH MAIN, 1ST B CROSS
HVR LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 040.
15. DHANAKOTI
AGED MAJOR
RESIDING AT SY NO. 66/1A2
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TLAUK - 560 079.
9
16. SRI. LAKSHMANA
AGED MAJOR
RESIDING AT NO. 70 HVR LAYOUT, MAGADI
MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 040.
17. SRI. PRAKASH
AGED MAJOR
S/O LATE SRISIDDALINGAIAH
RESIDING AT NO. 2472, 7TH B MAIN
2ND STAGE RPC LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA
BENGALURU.
18. SMT. SUMANGALA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
D/O LATE SRISIDDALINGAIAH
RESIDING AT NO. 2472, 7TH B MAIN
2ND STAGE RPC LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 104.
19. SMT. ANUSUYA
AGE MAJOR, W/O SRI. DHANAKOTI
RESIDING AT SY NO. 66/1A2
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TLAUK - 560 079.
20. SMT. R. YASHODA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
W/O SRINAYRAYANAPPA
RESIDING AT NO. 16, 6TH MAIN ROAD
HVRLAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 040.
21. SRI.G. RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SRI. H. GANGAPPA
RESIDING AT NO. 111, JUGANAHALLI
2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINGARA
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.V.VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-6
SRI. K.M. SANATHKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 TO R-10
SRI. R.L.N. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR 20)
10
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W
SECTION 114 OF CPC., PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:
07.01.2020 IN RFA NO. 196/2015 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Both these review petitions arise out of the impugned
common judgment and decree dated 07.01.2020 passed by
this Court in RFA No.399/2014 C/W RFA No.196/2015,
whereby the said appeals were disposed of by this Court in
terms of a compromise petition filed by some of the
respondents.
2. RP No.85/2021 is directed against the impugned
judgment and decree passed in RFA NO.399/2014, whereas
RP No.22/2021 is directed against the impugned judgment
and decree passed in RFA No.196/2015. As stated supra,
both the appeals were disposed off by the common impugned
compromise judgment and decree.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving
raise to the present petitions are that both RFA No.399/2014
and RFA No.196/2015 had been filed by the respective
appellants who were aggrieved by the judgment and decree
dated 10.12.2013 passed in O.S.No.6075/1988 by the trial
Court in a suit for declaration, possession and injunction in
respect of the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit
having been decreed by the trial court in favour of the
plaintiffs, defendants were the appellants in both the appeals.
4. As is evident from the cause title to the impugned
judgment and decree, Smt.Bhanumathi, the review-petitioner
herein was impleaded and arrayed as respondent No.16 in
both the appeals. The impugned compromise judgment and
decree also discloses that the review petitioner herein is not a
party to the compromise petition entered into between the
other parties nor is there any reference to the review-petitioner
in the compromise petition. It is also seen that the review
petitioner was not heard at the time of this Court accepting the
compromise petition and passing the impugned compromise
judgment and decree in terms of the compromise petition to
which the review-petitioner was not a party; in fact, there is
absolutely no reference to the review petitioner nor were her
claims and contentions considered in either the compromise
petition or in the impugned compromise decree.
5. Apart from all other contentions urged on behalf
of the review-petitioner in the present petition, it is her specific
assertion, grievance and contention that the impugned
compromise judgment and decree, which has been passed
without the consent of the review-petitioner by accepting a
compromise petition to which she was neither a party nor an
executant and without hearing her or affording any opportunity
to her to have her say is an error apparent on the face of the
record and the same is illegal and vitiated being contrary to
principles of natural justice. It is contended that the impugned
compromise judgment and decree would cause great
prejudice and detriment to the review-petitioner and affect her
valuable legal rights and since there is a patent procedural
impropriety and illegality committed by this Court in accepting
the compromise and disposing off the appeals without
reference to the review-petitioner nor hearing her or
considering her claims and contentions, the impugned
compromise judgment and decree suffers from an error
apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by
this Court in the present petition.
6. Per contra, it is contended by the respondents
that the review petitioner does not have any right over the
subject matter of the present appeal or the suit before the trial
Court and that there is no merit in the review petition and the
same is liable to be dismissed. Alternatively, it is submitted
that even assuming this Court comes to the conclusion that an
opportunity of hearing has to be given to the review-petitioner,
the impugned judgment and decree can be set aside and the
appeals be restored to file only to the limited/restricted extent
of hearing the review petitioner and considering her claims
and contentions without setting aside the entire impugned
judgment and decree whereby this Court recorded, accepted
and confirmed the compromise entered into between the other
parties.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
8. Though several contentions have been urged by
both sides in support of their respective claims, a perusal of
the impugned compromise judgment decree passed will
indicate that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for
the review-petitioner, the impugned compromise judgment and
decree, which has undisputedly been passed without the
consent of the review-petitioner and by accepting a
compromise petition to which she was neither a party nor an
executant and without hearing her or affording any opportunity
to her nor considering her claims, contentions etc., is clearly
an error apparent on the face of the record being illegal,
vitiated and in violation of not only principles of natural justice
but also the mandatory procedure prescribed under Order 23
Rule 3 CPC thereby warranting interference by this Court in
the present petition. Under these circumstances, without
expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of any of the
rival contentions, having regard to the fact that the impugned
compromise judgment and decree suffers from the aforesaid
procedural impropriety and patent illegality, I deem it just and
appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree
and restore the appeals for reconsideration afresh for the
limited/restricted purpose of considering the claims,
contentions etc., of the review-petitioner and hearing her and
disposing off the appeals in accordance with law.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Both the Review petitions in R.P.No.86/2021
and R.P.No.22/2021 are hereby allowed-in-
part.
(ii) The Impugned common compromise
judgment and decree dated 07.01.2020
passed by this Court in RFA No.399/2014
c/w RFA No.196/2015 is hereby set aside
and the appeals are restored to file for the
limited/restricted purpose of considering the
claims, contentions etc., of the review-
petitioner, Smt.Bhanumathi(Respondent
No.16 in both the appeals) and hearing her
and disposing off the appeals in accordance
with law.
(iii) The impugned common compromise
judgment and decree insofar as it relates to
accepting, recording and confirming the
compromise entered into between the other
parties to the appeals is hereby confirmed
and the same is not interfered with in the
present review petitions.
(iv) List both the appeals in RFA No.399/2014
c/w RFA No.196/2015 for final disposal on
21.07.2022 at 02.30 P.M.
(v) All rival contentions between all the parties
are kept open and no opinion is expressed
on the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SV/BMC
