Karnataka High Court
Sri. Munivenkatappa vs Sri.D.Krishnappa on 16 March, 2022
Bench: R. Nataraj
1
RSA 1827/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1827 OF 2017 (Inj)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIAJJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
2. SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIAJJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
DODDA MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BIJJAVARA POST,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PIN CODE : 562 164. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHANKAR REDDY C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI D.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE DODDABACHANNA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT DODDA MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
2
RSA 1827/2017
BIJJAVARA POST,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE : 562 164. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MANJUNATH G KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION
100 READ WITH ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.08.2017 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.15067/16 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2014 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.200/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.200 of
2006 challenging the divergent finding recorded by the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.15067 of 2016 by which, it reversed
the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in
O.S.No.200 of 2006 and granted perpetual injunction against
the defendants/appellants.
2. The appeal was admitted on 02.11.2017. The
parties have thereafter reported a compromise by filing a
RSA 1827/2017
petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. The relevant terms of which reads as
follows:
"4. The appellants submit that they had
initiated proceedings in PTCL.SR.(D)24/2006-07
against the respondent before the Assistant
Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division and the
same came to be allowed on 04.07.2008and the sale
deed dated 26.10.1964 was set at naught. The said
order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru by an order
dated 20.04.2015 made in Case No.LND.SC.ST
43/2008-2009. At the instance of the respondent the
single judge of this honorable court was pleased to
allow Writ Petition No.30194/2015 [SC.ST] and the
orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner referred to above came to be set aside
and the sale deed dated 26.10.1964 came to be
restored to file.
5. The appellants submit that now since the
said order made in the Writ Petition No.30194/2015
[SC.ST] has been passed, the parties have sat in a
negotiating table and have decided to settle the subject
matter of the above appeal amicably. The terms of the
compromise petition is reduced as under.
RSA 1827/2017
6. The appellants submit that they would
restrict their claim in the above appeal only to the
extent of 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy.No.57/1 of Dodda
Muddenahalli Village and have given up their claims in
respect of the remaining extent of land i.e., 1 acre of
land in the same survey number. The respondent
admits that the appellants are in possession of 1 acre
16 guntas of land situated at Doda Muddenahalli Village
and that they admit that the appellants are entitled to
continue to be in possession of the said extent of land
and that the respondent or any of his family members
will not press the sale deed dated 30.06.1964 to the
said extent of 1 acre 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.57/1
of Dodda Muddenahalli Village. The respondent
undertakes before this honorable court that he will not
interfere with the possession of the appellants over the
said 1 acre 16 guntas for all times to come. The said 1
acre 16 guntas of land is more full described as
Schedule 'A' property to the compromise petition.
7. The appellants admit that the respondent is
in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre of land in
Sy.No.57/1 of Dodda Muddenahalli village and that
they will restrict their claims only to the said extent of
land and that they will restrict their claims under the
sale deed dated 30.06.1964 only to the said extent of
land. For all practical purposes it is agreed between
the parties that the sale deed dated 30.06.1964 is only
to the extent of 1 acre only and not 2 acres 12 guntas
RSA 1827/2017
as mentioned in the sale deed. The appellants
undertake that they will not interfere with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the respondent over the
said 1 acre of land in Sy.No.57/1 of Dodda
Muddenahalli village. The said 1 acre of land in
Sy.No.57/1 of Doda Muddenahalli village is more full
described as Schedule 'B' Property to the compromise
petition.
8. The appellants are entitled to get their
names entered in the revenue records to the extent of
the Schedule 'A' Property and that the respondent is
entitled to get his name entered in the revenue records
to the extent of Schedule 'B' Property. If necessary
each of the parties would state no objection for transfer
of revenue records before the appropriate revenue
authorities.
9. Both the parties are entitled to continue to
be in possession in respect of their respective
allotments and the compromise petition is not only
binding on the parties to the appeal but also all other
family members who may have rights over any portion
of the subject matter of the above appeal.
10. Both the parties confirm that they have not
mortgaged, encumbered or dealt with in any manner in
respect of any portion of the Schedule 'A' and Schedule
'B' Property and the same are all free from
encumbrances.
RSA 1827/2017
11. The appellants are entitled to receive back
all the original documents filed by the appellants and
the respondent in the suit bearing O.S.No.200/2006 on
the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at
Devanahalli. That is to say that all the original
documents filed by both the parties shall be taken back
by the appellants/defendant since they have been
allotted larger extent of property and hence they are
entitled to have custody of the original documents.
12. By virtue of the compromise petition all
disputes in relation to the schedule properties are fully
and finally settled. In view of the settlement arrived at
both the parties undertake to withdraw all proceedings
of any nature, including civil, criminal and revenue that
they might have initiated fully and completely and
inform the said authorities or courts in which such
proceedings may be pending regarding the compromise
arrived at between the parties.
13. The appellants and the respondent each
have no objection for the other to get separate
mutation and RTC entries, phodi and resurvey of the
land in respect of the land allotted to each of the
parties respectively at their own costs and risks.
14. Each of the parties are entitle to enjoy the
property allotted to them without the interference of
the property of the other and they are also at liberty to
RSA 1827/2017
alienate or create any sort of encumbrances over the
respective allotment without the consent or
concurrence of the other parties.
15. Both the parties have entered into the
compromise petition freely and fairly without any
element of force, fraud, coercion or undue influence
and both the parties have understood the fully import
and consequences of entering into the above
compromise petition.
16. Both the parties have agreed to bear their
own costs of the proceedings throughout.
WHEREFORE, the appellants and the
respondent above named pray that this honorable
court be pleased to allow the above appeal in terms of
the compromise petition and modify the Judgments
and Decrees of the courts below accordingly allotting
the Schedule 'A' Property to the appellants and
Schedule 'B' Property to the respondents and pass such
other necessary orders in the interest of justice and
equity".
3. The plaintiff claimed to be the purchaser of the
land in Sy.No.57/1 of Dodda Muddenahalli Village, Vijayapura
Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, which was allegedly land granted to
the father of the defendants. It is stated that proceedings
RSA 1827/2017
were initiated by the defendants for resumption of the land
and restoration under the provisions of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, which was allowed and
the Sale Deed dated 30.10.1964 was nullified. This was
confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural
District, which was thereafter challenged by the plaintiff
before this Court in Writ Petition No.30194 of 2015. This
Court in terms of the order dated 26.11.2021 allowed the writ
petition and set aside the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and revived the
Sale Deed dated 30.10.1964. As a result, the defendants
have no subsisting right in the property in question. By virtue
of this compromise, the plaintiff/respondent has agreed to
restrict his right, title and interest to the property mentioned
in the Schedule 'B' propertywhile the defendants/appellants
would be entitled to the property described the Schedule 'A'.
Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the
same being just and fair, it is accepted.
RSA 1827/2017
4. The parties are present in person and are identified
by their respective counsel. They state that they have read
and understood the terms of the compromise and
acknowledge and admitted its execution. In token thereof,
they have signed the order-sheet of this Court.
5. In view of the compromise petition filed, this
regular second appeal stands disposed off in terms of the
compromise petition. The impugned judgment and decree
passed by the First Appellate Court passed in R.A.No.15067 of
2016 is modified and this Regular Second Appeal stands
disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.
Office is directed to draw a decree in terms of the
compromise petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DH
