Karnataka High Court
Sri. Veeranna vs Sri. Narasaiah on 23 March, 2022
Bench: R. Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
REVIEW PETITION NO.40 OF 2020
IN
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1841/2013 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VEERANNA
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT MANCHALAKUPPE,
URDIGERE HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK-562 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NARASAIAH
(CORRECT NAME CHANDRASHEKAR M.B.)
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT SULIKUNTE VILLAGE,
THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH,
D/O NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2
3. SMT. VARALAKSHMAMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA,
D/O NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE
RESIDING AT SOOLANKUNTE VILLAGE,
KULAVANAHALLI POST,
THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1;
SRI. KOUSHIK J. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2 AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE RENDERED IN RSA
No.1841/2013 DATED 20.12.2019 PASSED BY THIS COURT BY
CONSEQUENTLY RESTORING THE SAME FOR PROPER
ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS BY ALLOWING THE
REVIEW PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This review petition is filed to recall the compromise
dated 20.12.2019 accepted by this Court in RSA
No.1841/2013.
2. The petitioner herein claims that he is a
beneficiary of a Will dated 14.08.2014 executed by Smt.
Narasamma, who was the respondent No.1 in R.S.A
No.1841/2013.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that R.S.A No.1841/2013 was listed before this
Court on 20.12.2019. It was informed to this Court that
Smt. Narasamma had expired without leaving any legal
representatives and therefore, the share of Smt.
Narasamma would be apportioned amongst the appellant
and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the second appeal. In
that regard, the parties had filed a compromise petition
apportioning the properties between the appellant and
respondent Nos.2 and 3. The compromise petition was
accepted and the appeal was disposed off in terms of the
compromise.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that final decree proceedings were initiated in FDP
No.5/2011 before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and CJM., Tumakuru, where the petitioner herein
filed an application to be impleaded as a legal
representative of the deceased Smt. Narasamma based on
the Will dated 14.08.2014 executed by her and that the
parties had adduced evidence before the Final Decree
Court. The learned counsel submits that the respondents
herein had deliberately suppressed the proceedings before
the Final Decree Court, when they stated in R.S.A.
No.1841/2013 that there were no legal representatives of
the deceased Smt. Narasamma. The learned counsel
therefore submitted that the compromise reported to this
Court in R.S.A.No.1841/2013 was fraudulent and deceitful.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1
did not dispute the fact that the petitioner herein had filed
an application in FDP No.5/2011 to come on record as the
legal representative of the deceased Smt. Narasamma and
that the Final Decree Court had held proceedings by
recording the evidence of the petitioner herein to
determine the question as to whether the petitioner herein
was a legal representative of Smt. Narasamma. The
learned counsel did not also dispute the fact that it was
stated before this Court in the Regular Second Appeal that
Smt. Narasamma died without leaving behind any legal
representatives. It is therefore, evident that the appellant
as well as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in RSA No.1841/2013 in
tandem have suppressed information before this Court and
have surreptitiously reported a compromise behind the
back of the petitioner herein.
In that view of the matter, this Review Petition is
allowed. The Judgment and Decree dated 20.12.2019
passed by this Court accepting the compromise in RSA
No.1841/2013 is recalled. The appeal is restored to the
file of this Court.
List R.S.A. No.1841/2013 for admission.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sma
