Karnataka High Court
Dr. H V R Iyengar vs Mrs. Indira Bipin Patel on 20 September, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, Umesh M Adiga
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M. ADIGA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2151 OF 2017 (PAR)
BETWEEN :
1. DR. H.V.R. IYENGAR
S/O LATE MR. H.V.R. IYENGAR
RESIDING AT NO.46
M.G.R.ROAD
KALAKSHETRA COLONY
Digitally signed by S P
SUDHA CHENNAI-600 090
Location: HIGH COURT SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
OF KARNATAKA
1(A) MRS. VINATHA IYENGAR
W/O LATE DR H.V.R. IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT 125/126
"PUSHPANJALI", 9TH MAIN
6TH CROSS, R.M.V. EXTENSION
SADASHIV NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 080.
1(B). MRS. RADHIKA YATHIN
W/O MR. YATHIN SABAPATHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT 10611
SPRINGVALE COURT, GREAT FALLS
VA-22066 U.S.A AND
ALSO AT 125/126
"PUSHPANJALI", 9TH MAIN
6TH CROSS, R.M.V. EXTENSION
-2-
SADASHIV NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 080.
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
BALAJI IYENGAR
S/O LATE B.V. IYENGAR
R/AT PARANDHAMA APARTMENT
NO.302F, NO.5, 6TH 'A' CROSS ROAD
R.M.V. EXTENSION
SADHASHIVANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 080. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. M.V. VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
MRS. INDIRA BIPIN PATEL
W/O DR. BIPIN PATEL
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NO.109,
CUMBALLA CREST
42/B, PEDDAR ROAD
MUMBAI-400 026 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. J. KIRAN, ADVOCATE)
....
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.10.2017 PASSED IN OS
NO.6983/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH
KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
JUDGMENT
Heard Shri. M.V. Vedachala, learned Advocate
for the appellants and Shri. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned
Senior Advocate for caveator/respondent on behalf of
Shri. J. Kiran.
2. Smt. Radhika Yathin, second appellant is
present in Court and she is identified by Shri. Vedachala.
Smt. Indira Bipin Patel, respondent has appeared virtually
(through video conference). Respondent's daughter and
her GPA holder Smt. Anjali Patel is present in Court. They
are identified by Shri. J. Kiran, Advocate.
3. Both learned advocates submit that the suit is
one for partition between brother and sister and parties
have agreed on the terms mentioned in the memorandum
of compromise. The compromise petition under Order
XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC duly signed by the
appellant, respondent and their respective advocates; and
the respondent's GPA Holder has been filed. They pray
that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of settlement
recorded in the compromise petition.
4. The terms of compromise read as follows:
The Appellants and Respondent at the intervention of the
well-wishers and friends compromise the matter, as follows:-
1. The parties are referred to as per the rankings before the Trial
Court, as Plaintiffs and Defendant.
2. The Appellants state that the Plaintiff and Defendant are the
children of H.V.R. Iyengar and Susheela Iyengar. The genealogical
tree of the family is shown below:-
H.V.R.IYENGAR
(Date of Death: 22.02.1978)
SMT. SUSHEELA IYENGAR (WIFE)
(Date of Death: 07.09.1999)
__________________________________________________
DR.H.V.R.IYENGAR (DEFENDANT) SMT.INDIRA BIPIN PATEL
(SON) (PLAINTIFF)
(Date of Death: 07.01.2005) (DAUGHTER)
SMT. VINITHA IYENGAR
(WIFE)
(Date of Death: 02.11.2020
SMT. RADHIKA YATHIN
(DAUGHTER)
3. The Plaintiff Smt.Indira Bipin Patel filed a suit in
O.S.No.6983/2000 in the court of the X Additional City Civil Judge,
Bangalore, for partition and separate possession of the property
bearing No.125, 126/32, 6th Cross, Rajmahal Vilas extension,
Bangalore-560080, more fully described in the schedule hereunder
and hereinafter referred to as the Schedule A Property.
4. The further case of the plaintiff is that the Registered Will
executed by Smt.Susheela Iyengar was a got-up document. The
Defendant Sri.H.V.R.Iyengar had contended that the Will was a
genuine document and the bequest made under the said Registered
Will dated 25.02.1997 was legal and valid and the property has
devolved on the Plaintiff and Defendant, as per the Registered Will
dated 25.02.1997. The Trial Court after recording of evidence had
allowed the suit and granted a decree for partition of the Plaint
Schedule A Property by metes and bounds. The defendant had filed
above Regular First Appeal before this Hon'ble Court and the matter
is pending adjudication.
5. On the advice of well-wishers, friends and after considering that
the matter can be resolved by way of compromise, the parties have
been mutually agreed for settlement. The terms of the settlement
are as follows:-
6. The Plaintiff and the Defendants have mutually agreed and
admitted that the Schedule A Property was originally on 03.02.1957,
conveyed by His Highness Maharaja of Mysore, by his duly
Constituted Attorney Sri.H.H.Pallegar in favour of H.V.R.Iyengar i.e.
father of the plaintiff, Indira Bipin Patel and defendant, Dr.H.V.R.
Iyengar. Thereafter under a Registered Will dated 04.06.1976,
registered as Document No.22/76-77 at pages 234-236, Volume: 63,
Book-III, in the office of the Head Quarters Sub-Registrar,
Gandhinagar, Bangalore, executed by Sri.H.V.R.Iyengar,
bequeathing the entire Schedule A Property to his wife Smt.Susheela
Iyengar. Thereafter the Bangalore Development Authority under an
Absolute Sale Deed dated 01.10.1985 has conveyed the Schedule A
Property in favour of Smt.Susheela Iyengar, w/o. Late
H.V.R.Iyengar, for a valuable consideration. Thus, Susheela Iyengar
became the absolute owner in actual physical possession of the
Schedule A Property. Susheela Iyengar as absolute owner in
physical possession of the Schedule A Property, under a Will dated
25.02.1997, which was her final Will, registered as Document
No.417/96-97, Page No.39, Volume: 173, Book-III, by the Sub
Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, bequeathed the entire Schedule
A Property in favour of her son Dr.H.V.R.Iyengar and out of the
Schedule A Property an extent of land measuring 13 feet x 74 feet
on the Eastern side of the Schedule A Property was bequeathed in
favour of the plaintiff for the purpose of better management of the
adjoining property, which had already been gifted to the plaintiff.The
said small strip being described hereunder and herein referred as the
Schedule B Property.
7. The plaintiff and the defendants now categorically admit the
execution of the Will dated 25.02.1997 and further they admit the
contents of the Will executed by Smt.Susheela Iyengar.
8. Smt.Indira Bipin Patel admits that Dr.H.V.R.Iyengar is the
absolute owner in possession of the entire Schedule A Property,
except the Schedule B Property. Smt.IndiraBipin Patel admits that
she is the owner in possession of 13 x 74 square feet, being the
Schedule B Property Smt. Radhika Yathin also admits that Smt.
Indira Bipin Patel is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment
of the 13 x 74 square feet, ad measuring 962 square feetbeing the
Schedule B property.
9. For the purposes of this compromise the Parties have agreed that
Schedule A Property except the portion being the Schedule B
Property, be sold by the Defendant/Appellants the sole and absolute
owner thereof, to Mrs.Bimla Devi Bothra, and the Purchaser has
thus agreed to pay the Plaintiff/Respondent a sum of
Rs.20,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty crores Only) in consideration of
the Parties admitting the lawful execution of the Will and Testatment
dated 25.02.1997 of Late Susheela Iyengar, and the Plaintiff
admitting that Smt.Radhika Yathin, being the sole and absolute
owner of the Schedule A Property(excluding Schedule B Property),
and likewise Smt.Radhika Yathin admitting that the Plaintiff is the
sole and absolute owner of the small strip of portion on the Eastern
side of the Schedule A Property measuring 13 x 74 square feet,
being the Schedule B Property, which is also agreed to be sold by the
Plaintiff to Mrs. BimlaDevi Bothra.
10. The plaintiff/respondent agrees and accepts that sum of
Rs.20,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Crores only), as the
consideration for withdrawing all the claims in respect of the
Schedule A Property (excluding Schedule B Property).
11. The Plaintiff acknowledges the receipt of the whole of the
consideration of Rs.20,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Crores only),
paid to the Plaintiff in the manner stated herein below; viz.
a) A sum of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs only) by
Cheque dated 05.09.2022, bearing No. 000459 drawn on ICICI
Bank, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore, the receipt of which the Vendor
hereby acknowledge;
b) A sum of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only) by Demand
draft dated19.09.2022bearing No505895drawn byICICI Bank, drawn
in favour of the Plaintiff, upon the Plaintiff and Mrs.Radhika Yathin
admitting to the compromise in terms herein above, before the Court
and the Hon'ble Court ordering the same. Such demand drafts being
handed over to the Plaintiff, by Mrs.RadhikaYathin, in court, the
receipt of which the Plaintiff hereby acknowledge;
c) The Purchaser shall pay a sum of Rs.8,04,50,000/- (Rupees Eight
Crores Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), by Demand draft drawn in
favour of the Vendor, upon the Vendor and Mrs.RadhikaYathin
admitting to the compromise in terms herein above, before the Court
and the Hon'ble Court ordering the same. However, the said demand
drafts shall be handed over the advocate of the Vendor, viz., Shri.
Samarth Shreedhar, who shall retain the said demand draft in
custody and hold the same in trust/escrow and shall hand over the
said cheque to the Vendor upon the Vendor executing the Sale Deed
of the Schedule B Willed/Gifted Property in favour of the Purchaser in
terms of the agreement to sell separately executed between the
parties. However, in the event the Vendor fails to execute the said
Sale Deed, then the Shri.SamarthShreedhar, shall forthwith upon
such failure return of the demand draft to the Purchaser Mrs. Bimla
Devi Bothra.
d) A sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only), being the tax
deducted at source by the Purchaser and paid to the credit of the
central government, as required under the provisions of the Income
Tax Act, 1961; the receipt of which the Plaintiff hereby also
acknowledge;
e) The plaintiff/Respondenth as also agreed to execute an Absolute
Sale Deed in favour of Mrs.Bimla Devi Bothra, in respect of the
extent of land measuring 13 x 74 square feet (totally measuring 962
Square feet) being the Schedule B Property, upon the Settlement
being ordered by this Hon'ble Court.
f) The Plaintiff however is suffering from severe health ailments and
is bed ridden and hence has executed a Power of Attorney in favour
of her daughter, Mrs. Anjali Patel Mehta. The Notarized Copy of the
GPA is being enclosed along with this Compromise Petition as
Document No. 1. Furthermore, the Vendor has also got the GPA
registered before the Office of the Joint District Registrar Class-1,
Mumbai City on 19/09/2022.
g) Notwithstanding the execution of the Power of Attorney cited
supra, the Plaintiff has accepted this compromise in terms herein
stated and has affixed her signature to this compromise in
acceptance of the terms stated herein, apart from the compromise
also being signed by her authorized power of attorney holder. The
Plaintiff is also appearing before this Hon'ble Court through video
conferencing in affirmation of this compromise.
h) The Parties confirms that the terms of the Will executed by
Susheela Iyengar dated 25.02.1997 and the contents of the Will are
true and correct and shall be binding on the Parties and her
successors in interest for eternity. Plaintiff/respondent and their
legal representatives shall not raise any claim of whatsoever nature
in respect of the Schedule A Property.
i) The amount received by Plaintiff/Respondent, in terms herein, is
in full and final settlement of all her claims of whatsoever nature in
respect of the Schedule A Property excluding Schedule B Property
j) The plaintiff/respondent further agrees that there has been no
coercion in her accepting the terms of this compromise petition.
k) The parties have agreed that katha in respect of the Plaint
Schedule Property (Schedule A Property excluding Schedule B
Property) shall be transferred in the name of Mrs.Radhika Yathin,
daughter of Mrs.Vinatha Iyengar and Dr.H.V.R.Iyengar.
l) This Compromise has been entered into between the Plaintiff and
Defendants out of their free will without any force or pressure from
any one and it is in the interest of both the sides.
m) Having reached this compromise agreeing to the terms and
conditions mentioned herein, under any circumstances, they will not
question the same at any point of time and it is binding on all of
them.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to record the above compromise and pass the judgment and
decree in terms of the above compromise petition, in the interest of
justice and equity.
- 10 -
SCHEDULE A PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of property known as "Pushpanjali"
bearing Nos.125, 126/32, 6th Cross Road, Rajmahal Vilas Extension,
Bangalore-560080, measuring East to West 136 Feet and North to
South on the back side 143 Feet with a total area of about 19,346
Sq.Ft., and bounded on the :-
East by - Building of Sri Naval Chandra Chabra,
West by - 6th Cross Road,
North by - Vacant premises,
South by- 9th Main Road,
SCHEDULE B PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of property known as "Pushpanjali"
bearing Nos.125, 126 and new no.32 and 33, 9th Main, Rajmahal
Vilas Extension, Bangalore-560080, measuring East to West 13 Feet
on both sides and North to South 74 feet with a total area of about
962 Sq. Ft., and bounded on the :-
East By - Adjoining property bearing No.134;
West By - Vacant Space of Property No.125 and 126;
North By - Remaining Property of 125, 126 and 133;
South By- Road"
5. In our opinion, compromise arrived at between
the parties is lawful and hence accepted. Appeal stands
disposed of in terms of compromise petition. Parties shall
bear their own costs. Decree be drawn accordingly.
6. Registry shall refund the court fee in accordance
with law.
- 11 -
7. Shri. Shashikiran Shetty, for respondent seeks
for return of certain documents. Registry shall transmit the
original records to the Trial Court. Respondent may file
an application before the Trial Court for return of
documents.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
