Sri P N Nagaraja vs Sri Munivenkatappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 4695 Kant

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

           R.S.A. NO.54 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
                         C/W
           R.S.A. NO.183 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)

IN RSA NO.54/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. P.N. NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE P. NARAYANAPPA
RESIDENT OF GUNIGANTE PALYA
MULLBAGAL-563131
KOLAR DISTRICT
                                          ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHESHADRI N.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA P.R.
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
       S/O LATE P. RAMAIAH
       RESIDENT OF GUNIGANTE PALYA
       MULLBAGAL-563131
       KOLAR DISTRICT

2.     SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
       W/O LATE SHANKARAPPA

3.     SMT. SUHASINI
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
       D/O LATE SHANKARAPPA

4.     SMT. ROOPA
                            2




     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
     D/O LATE SHANKARAPPA

     NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS
     NEAR ADI ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE,
     GUNIGANTIPALYA
     MULBAGAL-563131
     KOLAR DISTRICT.

5.   SMT. SAKAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
     D/O LATE RAMIAH
     W/O MUNISWAMY
     RESIDENT OF PANJANI VILALGE AND POST
     PUNGANUR TALUK
     CHITTOOR DISTRICT
     ANDHRA PRADESH-57247.

6.   SMT. NARAYANAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
     D/O LATE RAMAIAH
     RESIDENT OF DUBASA PALYA
     MYSORE ROAD
     BENGALURU-560059.

7.   SMT. PADMAVATHI
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
     W/O GOPI
     RESIDENT OF BALAJIGARA STREET
     KAIWARA VILLAGE AND POST
     CHINTHAMANI TALUK
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563128.

8.   SMT. UMA
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     W/O SRINIVASA
     RESIDENT OF KASAI ROAD
     MALUR TOWN
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.


9.   SMT. RADHAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
     D/O LATE RAMAIAH
                           3




       RESIDING AT NO.12/121-4,
       EAST GATE, PUNGANURU TOWN
       CHITTOOR DISTRICT
       ANDHRA PRADESH-517247.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY  SRI.   K.V.SHYAMA     PRASADA,      ADVOCATE   FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 9)

     THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 18.06.2020 PASSED IN RA NO.103/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE , KOLAR
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 26.04.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.276/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOLAR.

IN RSA NO.183/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. P.N. NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE P. NARAYANAPPA,
RESIDENT OF GUNIGANTE PALYA,
MULLBAGAL 563131, KOLAR DISTRICT
                                            ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SHESHADRI N.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O LATE P. RAMAIAH,
RESIDENT OF GUNIGANTE PALYA,
MULLBAGAL-563131,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
                                           ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.V.SHYAMA PRASADA, ADVOCATE)

     THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 18.06.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.132/2019 ON
                               4




THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 26.04.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.276/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
KOLAR, ITINERATING AT MULBAGAL.

     THESE R.S.A.s COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

R.S.A. No.54/2021 :

This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.

No.276/2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil

Judge at Kolar (Itinerating at Mulabagal) (henceforth

referred to as 'Trial Court') challenging the judgment and

decree of the I Additional District Judge, Kolar (henceforth

referred to as 'First Appellate Court') in R.A. No.103/2016.

2. When the appeal was listed for orders, the

parties have entered into a settlement and have filed a

compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code

of Civil Procedure. The relevant terms of the compromise

are as follows :

"4. The subject matter of the suit is property bearing Sy. No.46/3, Measuring 1 acre 6 guntas,

situate at Someshwarapalya, Kasaba Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk and bounded on;

East by:             Road
West by:             Earlier  property  belonging  to

Bajanthri Rangappa now belonging to K.Shekar

North by: Property belonging to M. Budan Sabi

South by: Earlier Property belonging to Narayanappa (Bajanthri Rangappa) now belonging to Shivanna

5. The Appellant's grandfather P.Munuiswamy and father of the Respondents P.Ramaiah are full blood brothers. The respective claim of the parties to the suit is that, the Plaintiff/Respondent claimed his father purchased suit property under a registered sale deed dated 11.11.1953, after his death they have succeeded to suit property and the claim of the Defendant/Appellant is that P. Ramaiah and P.Muniswamy being brothers are in joint possession of the suit and in panchayath parikath suit property is allotted to his the share of his grandfather.

6. The Appellant and Respondents have settled their disputes involved in the above suit/appeal relating to the suit schedule property amicably by mutual consent and also at the

intervention elders, well wishers, common friends and relatives on the following terms and conditions

7. The Appellant Respondents admits the suit property is joint family property between P.Ramaiah (father of Appellant) and P.Muniswamy (granfather of Appellant) and they are entitle for half share each and according they are dividing suit property. Out of the property measuring 1 acre 06 guntas in Sy. No. 46/3, the Appellant is entitled for 20 guntas on the Northern side of the suit property, which is morefully described in the 'A' SCHEDULE PROPERTY to this Compromise petition and hereinafter referred to as the 'A' Schedule property and the Respondents herein are entitle for remaining 26 guntas on the Southern side of the suit property, which is morefully described in the 'B' SCHEDULE PROPERTY to this compromise petition and hereinafter referred to as the 'B' Schedule property.

8. The Respondents herein admit that the Appellant herein. is the absolute owner in possession of 'A' schedule property to this compromise petition and they undertake not to interfere with his possession. Similarly the Appellant herein admit that the Respondents herein are the absolute owners in possession of 'B' Schedule property to this Compromise petition

and he undertakes not to interfere their possession.

9. The Appellant is entitle to get katha transferred in respect of 'A' schedule property to this petition in his name and Respondents are entitle for katha of 'B' schedule property to this petition in their name and they will state their no objection before the revenue authorities, if need be.

10. In view of the settlement, the Appellant undertake to withdraw the W.P. No. 51143/2019 (KLR) W.P. No. 52399/2019 (KLR) filed by him, on the file of this Hon'ble Court questioning the transfer of katha in the name of Respondents by virtue of the rights acquired under this Compromise petition.

11. In view of the above settlement the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 herein, are filing Joint Memo in R.S.A. 183/2021, to dispose the said appeal as per the Compromise reached in this appeal i.e., R.S.A. No. 54/2021.

12. Thus, the claim of the Appellant and Respondents herein is settled in full and final settlement of their claim against each other.

13. The Appellant and the Respondents submit that the compromise is arrived at out of

their free will and accord and there is no coercion, undue influence, force, etc., of whatsoever nature in arriving at the compromise.

'A' SCHEDULE PROPOERTY ALLOTTED TO THE SHARE OF APPELLANT All that piece and parcel of the Northern side

guntas out of 1 acre 6 guntas, situate at Someshwarapalya, Kasaba Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk and bounded on ;

 East by          Road
 West by          Earlier  Property  belonging   to

Bajanthri Rangappa now belonging to K. Shekar North by Property belonging to M. Budan Sabi South by 'B' Schedule property allotted to Respondents

'B' SCHEDULE PROPOERTY ALLOTTED TO THE SHARE OF RESPONDENTS All that piece and parcel of the Southern side

guntas out of 1 acre 6 guntas, situate at Someshwarapalya, Kasaba Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk and bounded on;

East by:         Road
West by:         Earlier Property belonging to Bajanthri

Rangappa now belonging to K. Shekar

North by: 'A' Property allotted to the share of Appellant

South by: Earlier Property belonging to Narayanappa (Bajanthri Rangappa) now belonging to Shivanna."

3. It is seen that the Trial Court had dismissed

the suit and the First Appellate Court had decreed the suit

and declared that the plaintiff and respondents No.2 to 9 in

R.A. No.103/2016 are the owners of the suit property and

consequently restrained the defendant/appellant herein

from interfering with the possession. As a result of this

compromise, plaintiff has agreed to take the 'B' Schedule

property, while the defendants and respondents No.2 to 9

in R.A. No.103/2016 have agreed to take 'A' Schedule

property as their share.

4. Since the compromise is just, fair and legal,

the same is accepted. The parties are present and are

identified by their respective counsel. They all accept that

they have compromised the dispute and agree that they

have understood the contents of the compromise. In

token of acceptance of the compromise, the parties have

signed the order sheet of this Court.

5. In view of the above, the impugned judgment

and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.

No.103/2016 is modified. Consequently, R.S.A.

No.54/2021 stands disposed off in terms of the

compromise.

6. Office is directed to draw a decree in terms of

the compromise.

R.S.A. No.183/2021 :

7. A joint Memo is filed by the learned counsel for

respondents in R.S.A. No.183/2021 that this appeal may

be disposed off since the parties have amicably settled the

dispute in R.S.A. No.54/2021. In view of the joint memo,

this appeal also stands disposed off.

Pending I.A., if any, does not survive for

consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

hnm