Smt. Vedavathi B L vs Sri.B.T.Lakshminarayana
2022 Latest Caselaw 3949 Kant

                             1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                  R.F.A NO. 1885 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. VEDAVATHI B L
W/O SRI NAGESH N P
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

2. SRI.VARUN
S/O SRI NAGESH N P
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

3. MASTER SHRUJAN
S/O SRI NAGESH N P
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT VEDAVATHI.B.L/APPELLANT NO.1

APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT C/O MUNIRAMA, NO.1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040

                                             ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.M SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE)
                                2


AND:

1. SRI.B.T.LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE B K THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

2. SMT C.L.ANUSUYA
W/O SRI B.T LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER
LR'S i.e., RESPONDENT NO.1, 3 & 4)

3. SMT VINUTHA.B.L
W/O SRI ARAVINDA D
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

4. SRI SATYAPRAKASH
S/O SRI B T LAKSHMINARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

5. MASTER VIKAS
S/O SRI ARAVINDA D
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

RESPONDENT NO.5 IS MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT VINUTHA/R-3

RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 4 ARE
R/AT NO.102, ANJANALAYA
8TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, CHAMARAJAPETE,
BANGALORE-560018.

RESPONENTS NO.3 AND 5 ARE
R/AT NO 34, 6TH CROSS,
5TH "A" MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 019
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHARATH CHANDRA.J, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4;
                                   3


R5 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R3)

     THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.789/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND
SEPARATE POSSESSION.

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

                          JUDGMENT

I.A.No.4/2021 is filed by appellant No.1 seeking

permission to enter into a compromise on behalf of appellant

No.3 herein, who is her minor son.

2. Similarly, I.A.No.2/2021 is filed by respondent No.3

seeking permission to enter into compromise on behalf of

respondent No.5, who is her minor son.

3. Admittedly, appellant is the daughter of respondent

No.1 through second wife. Respondent No.3 is also daughter

of respondent No.1 through first wife. The properties are

owned by the family of respondent No.1. Therefore, even

otherwise appellants 2 and 3 and respondent No.5 during the

lifetime of their mothers appellant No.1 and respondent No.3

respectively have no semblance of right and title as suit

property is maternal property of appellant No.1 and

respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, appellant No.1

and respondent No.3 are competent to enter into compromise

without even seeking consent of their children though they are

added as formal parties to these proceedings.

4. The appellants as well as respondents are present

before the Court and they are identified by their respective

counsel. Both the parties submit that they have arrived at an

amicable settlement whereby appellant No.1 has agreed to

receive a sum of Rs.46 lakhs in lieu of her share in suit

schedule properties and respondent No.3 has already received

some other property and accordingly, she has executed a

registered release deed in favour of respondent No.4 dated

1.10.2020 and the same is reflected in para 10 of the

compromise petition. The suit schedule properties are retained

by respondent No.4. Both the parties would submit that they

have gone through the terms and conditions of the

compromise petition and having understood terms and

conditions have signed the compromise petition out of free

consent and volition. The parties have amicably put to rest the

lis which was pending for last eleven years.

5. Perused the terms and conditions of the

compromise petition. None of the parties who are signatory to

the compromise petition have complained any duress, coercion

or undue influence. I am satisfied that adjustment of claim

arrived at is by a lawful agreement. Compromise petition filed

is admitted and is taken on record. This Court is also of the

view that it must be given effect to. Therefore, the appeal is

disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

7. Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of the compromise petition.

Sd/-

JUDGE *alb/-