Revappa vs Dhakshanamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 4120 Kant

                             1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

     REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.696 OF 2015 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

REVAPPA
S/O LATE GURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/O THOPENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577213
                                     ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      DHAKSHANAMMA
        W/O LATE G. CHANDRAPPA,
        AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

2.      SIDDALINGAPPA
        S/O LATE G. CHANDRAPPA,
        AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

3.      VAGESHAPPA
        S/O LATE G. CHANDRAPPA,
        AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

4.      KUM. MANASA
        D/O LATE G. CHANDRAPPA
        27 YEARS,

        ALL ARE R/O THOPENAHALLI VILLAGE,
        CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577213
                            2


5.    MAHESHWARAPPA
      S/O NANJUNDAPPA
      49 YEARS,
      R/O HIREUDA VILLAGE
      CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577213

6.    SOMASHEKRAPPA
      S/O NANJUNDAPPA
      49 YEARS,
      R/O THOPENAHALLI VILLAGE,
      CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577213

7.    SMT. GAYATHRI
      W/O MANJAPPA,
      43 YEARS,
      R/O MYDOLALU VILLAGE,
      CHANNAGIRI TALUK 577213.

8.    PRAKASH
      S/O NANJUNDAPPA,
      41 YEARS,
      R/O HIREUDA VILLAGE,
      CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577213

9.    SMT. THULAJAMMA
      W/O CHANDRAPPA
      39 YEARS,
      R/O APPARASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
      HOLALKERE TALUK-577526.

10.   SMT. BASAMMA
      W/O NAGAPPA,
      35 YEARS,
      R/O KOKKANUR VILLAGE,
      HARIHARA TALUK-577601.

11.   MAHADEVAPPA
      DEAD BY HIS LRS.,

11(a) RATHNAMMA
      W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
                                3


11(b) MANU B.M.
      S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

11(c) SWAMY B.M.
      S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

      ALL ARE R/O THOPENAHALLI VILLAGE,
      CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577213.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH,
ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR / RESPONDENT NO.2 AND
RESPONDENT NOs.1, 3 TO 10;
SRI. N.R.RANGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOs.11(a TO c)
CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED
10.03.2022)

      THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.01.2015
PASSED IN R.A.NO.61/2010 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
04.06.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.29/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.

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

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the defendant No.1 in O.S.

No.29/2007 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Davanagere, (henceforth referred to as the 'Trial

Court') challenging the Judgment and Decree dated

04.06.2010 passed therein which was confirmed by the

Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Davanagere, (henceforth referred to as the 'First Appellate

Court') in R.A. No.61/2010.

2. The said suit was filed for partition and

separate possession of the suit schedule properties which

was decreed by the Trial Court and it was declared that the

plaintiff and defendant No.1 are entitled to 4/9th share

each while the defendant No.2 is entitled to 1/9th share in

the suit schedule properties.

3. The parties have reported a compromise

today, the relevant terms of which read as follows:

"a) That the entire property in item No.1 of suit A schedule property i.e., the land measuring 3 acres 3 guntas comprised in Sy.

No.46/1AP1 situated at Thopenahalli Village, Santhebennur Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District and the house property mentioned in item No.1 of the suit B schedule property i.e., the property bearing Janjer No.80/80 measuring 9X8 meters situated at Thopenahali Village, Santhebennur Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere district have been allotted to the share of legal heirs of original plaintiff i.e., the respondents 1 to 4

herein namely Dhakshanamma, Siddalingappa @ Siddalingaswamy, Vaggesh @ Vageshappa and Kum. Manasa @ Bhavani.

b) That the entire agriculture and measuring 2 acres 19 guntas comprised in Sy No.24/4P2 Thopenahalli Village, Santhebennur Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District which is Item No.4 of the suit A schedule property and entire agricultural land measuring 2 acres comprised in Sy No.10/P5 situated at Thopenahalli Village, Santhebennur Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere which is item No.5 of suit A schedule property and land measuring 34 guntas comprised in Sy No.46/1BP2 situated at Thopenhalli Village, Santhebennur Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District which is item No.2 of the suit A schedule property and the house property measuring 13.3 X 8.4 meters bearing Janjer No.34/34 situated Thopenahalli Village, Santhebenuur Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District which is Item No.2 of the suit B Schedule property have been allotted to the share of the 1st defendant i.e., appellant herein namely Revappa.

c) That the appellant herein has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Three Lakhs Only) by way of Demand Draft bearing No.362582 dated: 08.03.2022 drawn on Canara Bank, Santhebennur Branch, in favor of Smt. Dhakshanamma in addition to the properties allotted to her jointly with other legal heirs of original plaintiff namely G. Chandrappa as a good gesture and the other legal heirs of the original plaintiff have no objection to pay the said amount in the name of the 1st respondent herein.

d) That 1 acre 38 guntas of an agricultural land comprised in Sy. No.18/2 situated at Thopenahalli Village, Santhebennur Hobli, Channagiri taluk, Davanagere District mentioned in item Ni.3 of suit A schedule property out of which 4 guntas situated towards southern side bounded by east: the land of Sri.Rangappa S/o Mahalingappa, by west: Thopenahalli-Santhebennur Road, by south: lands of Guruprasad S/o Palanetrappa, and by North: remaining extent of 1 acre 34 guntas allotted to the appellant-Revappa in the same survey number is allotted to the share of the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and remaining extent of 1 Acer and 34 guntas has been allotted to the share of the appellant herein namely Revappa.

e) It is submitted that the legal heirs of 2nd Defendant i.e., Respondents 5 to 10 have given up or relinquish the share which are allotted to them by the courts in favour of legal heirs of the original plaintiff and 1st Defendant and have also agreed to the terms of this compromise petition out of their free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters.

f) The appellant and husband and father of Respondents No.11(a) to (c) Mahadevappa both have exchanged the 25 guntas of land vide registered exchange deed dated: 05.11.2007, as per this exchange deed, the 25 gunats of land in Sy. No.24/4P2 in item No.4 of A schedule property was given to Late Mahadevappa by appellant and 25 guntas of property in Sy No.24/4P1 was given to appellant by Mahadevappa, since the entire suit item No.4 in A schedule property having

been allotted to the share of appellant, the appellant and Respondents No.1 to 10 have no objection against exchange deed and consequently they have relinquished their rights over 25 guntas of land as stated in said exchange deed.

g) It is submitted that the respondents 11(a) to 11(c) are not the relatives of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 thereof they are not entitled for any share over the suit schedule properties and they have no objection for settlement being arrived at between the appellant and the other respondents except the terms and conditions mentioned at para-f to this compromise.

h) It is submitted that the appellant and respondents herein are entered into this compromise with their free will and consent and without there being any undue influence or coercion.

i) It is submitted that both the appellant and respondents pray this Hon'ble court to treat this compromise petition as part of parcel of decree in the above appeal.

Wherefore the appellant and respondents respectfully pray that the Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to modify the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2015 passed by court of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere in R.A.61/2010 confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2010 passed by the court of learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge at Davanagere in O.S. No.29/2007 and decree the suit in terms and condition in

order secure the ends of justice and the cost of this appeal may be made easy."

4. As a result of the compromise, the parties

have proportionately divided the suit schedule properties

which nearly corresponds to their respective shares. In

terms of the compromise, the appellant / defendant No.1

has handed over a demand draft bearing No.362582 dated

08.03.2022 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the

respondent No.1.

5. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are present in

person while respondent Nos.5 to 9 have executed a

special power of attorney in favour of the respondent

No.10. The original power of attorney executed in favour

of the respondent No.10 is placed on record. The

respondent Nos.1 to 10 have also engaged an Advocate,

who has affixed his signature to the compromise petition.

Likewise, respondent Nos.11(a) to 11(c) and their

Advocate have affixed their signatures to the compromise

petition. The parties have accepted the terms of the

compromise and have admitted that they have executed

this compromise. In token of their acceptance of the terms

of the compromise, the parties have affixed their

signatures to the order sheet of this Court.

6. In that view of the matter, the compromise

being just, fair and lawful, the same is accepted. This

Regular Second Appeal stands disposed off in terms of the

compromise petition. Consequently, the impugned

Judgments and Decrees passed by the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court in O.S. No.29/2007 and R.A.

No.61/2010 respectively, stand modified accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sma