Karnataka High Court
Sri. Keshavamurthy vs Smt. Jayashree on 10 July, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:23766
RFA No. 447 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 447 OF 2016 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KESHAVAMURTHY
S/O LATE D.MUNIYAPPA
AGED 54 YEARS,
NO.590, DOMLUR LAYOUT,
BANGALORE
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JAYASHREE
W/O THYAGARAJ
D/O LATE D.MUNIYAPPA
Digitally signed AGED 53 YEARS,
by R/O NO.148, DOMLUR VILLAGE,
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY BANGALORE-71
Location: High
Court of 2. SMT. SUVARNA
Karnataka W/O VENKATESH
D/O LATE S.B. MUNIYAPPA
AGED 51 YEARS,
PESENTLY R/AT DODDAGUNJUR VILLAGE & POST
CHINTAMANI TALUK
KOLAR DIST.
3. KUM. INDRANI
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S
3(A) SRI. PROMODH KUMAR K.T.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:23766
RFA No. 447 of 2016
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O SRI. THYAGARAJ AND SMT. JAYASHREE
3(B) SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR T
S/O SRI. THYAGARAJ AND SMT. JAYASHREE
BOTH ARE R/AT 148, DOMLUR VILLAGE
NEAR RAMA TEMPLE
BENGALURU - 71
4. KUMARI BHAGYA
D/O LATE D.MUNIYAPPA,
AGED 42 YEARS
R.AT NO.590, 1ST FLOOR, 1-B CROSS
DOMLUR LAYIOUT
BANGALORE-71
5. SMT.PADMA
W/O GOPALAKRISHNA
D/O LATE S.B.MUNIYAPPA
AGED 57 YEARS
R/O SHIVAKOTE VILLAGE
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-58
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VARUN PAI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. SIDDARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2015 PASSED IN
O.S NO.744/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CVIIL
JUDGE, (CCH NO.10), BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:23766
RFA No. 447 of 2016
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 96 of CPC is filed by
defendant No.1 challenging the judgment and decree
dated 30.11.2015 passed by the XVIII Addl. City Civil
Judge, Bangalore City in O.S.No.744/2003, whereby the
suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed and plaintiff Nos.3 to 6
are entitled for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule
property.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 are the sons and
plaintiff Nos.3 to 6 and defendant No.2 are the daughters
of Late S. B. Muniyappa and plaintiff No.1. Plaintiffs have
filed the suit for partition and separate possession. The
trial Court by judgment and decree dated 30.11.2015 has
decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant
No.1 has filed this appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:23766
RFA No. 447 of 2016
4. After service of notice issued by this Court, the
learned counsel appearing for the parties have filed the
compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. The
contents of the compromise petition is extracted
hereinbelow:
"Memorandum of Compromise Petition under
Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure:
The Appellant and the Respondents herein jointly
submit as under:
1. The Respondents-1 to 4 along with their mother
Smt.Lakshmamma and their brother Vasudeva
Murthy had instituted the civil suit bearing
O.S.No.744 of 2003 in the Court of the Hon'ble
XVIII-Additional City Civil Judge, at Bengaluru City
(C.C.H.No.10) seeking decree against the Appellant
and the Respondent-5 for partition and separate
possession of their 1/8th share each in the House
Property bearing No.590 consisting of ground floor
and first floor situated at 1-B Cross, Domlur Layout,
Bengaluru-560071, which is described in the
Schedule hereto and hereinafter referred to as the
suit schedule property.
NC: 2023:KHC:23766
RFA No. 447 of 2016
2. The Appellant and the Respondent-5 (Defendants-
1 and 2) had contested the said suit. Subsequent to
filing of the said suit the plaintiff-1
Smt.Lakshmamma died on 15-02-2007 and the
plaintiff-2 Vasudeva Murthy died on 02-03-2003 and
Plaintiff No.2 was unmarried (Plaintiff No.1 is mother
of Plaintiff No.2 to 6 and defendants). The Plaintiffs-3
to 6 and Defendants-1 and 2 being their Legal
Representatives were already on record.
Accordingly, they were treated as legal
representatives of the deceased plaintiffs-1 and 2.
3. The Trial Court after considering the case on
merits had decreed the said suit by its Judgment and
Decree dated 30-11-2015 by holding that the
Plaintiffs-3 to 6 are entitled for 1/6th share each in
the suit schedule property by way of partition and
separate possession. Further it was held that
Defendants-1 and 2 shall put the Plaintiffs-3 to 6 in
separate possession of their 1/6th share each in the
suit schedule property by way of partition failing
which Plaintiffs-3 to 6 shall take their shares by
initiating final decree proceedings. Aggrieved by the
said judgment and decree, the Appellant/Defendant-
1 has preferred the above appeal.
4. Subsequent to filing of the above Appeal the
Respondent-3 Kum.Indrani died on 29-11-2020
NC: 2023:KHC:23766
RFA No. 447 of 2016
leaving behind her a registered Will dated 12-11-
2020 bequeathing her undivided share in the suit
schedule property in favour of her sister, Smt.
Jayashree (Respondent-1) and her children viz.,
Sri Pramod Kumar K. T. and Naveen Kumar T. The
said Smt. Jayashree is already on record and the
other two beneficiaries under the Will Viz.,
Sri Promod Kumar K.T. and Sri Naveen Kumar T.,
have been brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased Respondent-3 Kum.Indrani.
5. The litigation in respect of the schedule property
has been pending for the last 20 years. There is no
dispute regarding the relationship of the parties to
this Appeal and mode of acquisition of the suit
schedule property. Now the Appellant and the
Respondents have amicably settled their dispute
involved in the above Appeal by mutual agreement
on the following terms and conditions:
a) Appellant and Respondents have agreed to
a right of equal shares in the schedule
property i.e. 1/6th share each to the
Appellant, Respondent-1, Respondent-2,
Respondent-4 and Respondent-5 and 1/6th
share jointly to the Respondent-3(a) and
Respondent-3(b) (being the legal
NC: 2023:KHC:23766
RFA No. 447 of 2016
representatives and legatees under the Will
of deceased Respondent-3).
b) Since it is not practicable for effecting
partition of the suit schedule property, the
parties hereto have mutually agreed to sell
the suit schedule property in favour of any
prospective purchaser/s and divide the sale
proceedings among them in the ratio
contained in clause 5(a) herein above.
c) The Appellant and the Respondents shall
cooperate in identifying their prospective
purchaser/s and in holding deliberations /
negotiations for settling the terms of sale
with the prospective purchaser/s and after
finalising the terms of sale they shall jointly
execute necessary sale deed and get it
registered in favour of the prospective
purchaser/s by receiving the sale
consideration in the ratio mentioned above.
d) It is further specifically agreed that out of
the total sale consideration, a sum of
Rs.6,00,000/- will be kept aside and paid to
the Appellant and the balance sale
consideration will be divided amongst the
Appellant and Respondents in the ratio
mentioned above.
NC: 2023:KHC:23766
RFA No. 447 of 2016
e) The Appellant and the Respondents hereby
agree to pay for payment of arrears of tax
in respect of the suit schedule property out
the sale proceeds and after deducting the
same the remaining sale proceeds shall be
divided among them in the manner stated
above.
f) Neither party shall not make any claim in
excess of what is provided hereinabove.
g) The Appellant shall keep the key in respect
of the ground floor portion of the suit
schedule property with himself in order to
enable him to open the ground floor portion
of the schedule property as and when
required for the purpose of inspection by
the Respondents/prospective purchasers.
He hereby undertake to handover vacant
possession to the prospective buyer
positively before execution of sale deed in
favour of the prospective buyer in respect
of the suit schedule property.
h) The Appellant and the Respondents hereby
agree to take prompt steps to identify
prospective purchaser and finalise the sale
of the suit schedule property as early as
possible. In the event the Appellant and
NC: 2023:KHC:23766
RFA No. 447 of 2016
Respondents are able to identify two
separate prospective purchasers, the one
who is offering highest sale consideration
and is willing to complete the transaction in
the reasonable shortest possible time shall
be given preference by the Appellant and
Respondents.
i) It is hereby declared that parties hereto
have consciously read and understood all
the above terms of settlement and agreed
to file this Compromise Petition and the
parties are executing this compromise
without any coercion or misrepresentation
or undue influence.
j) The above terms of settlement shall be final
and conclusive and the same shall not be
reopened under any circumstances.
k) The appellants and respondents shall co-
operate with each other to show the
schedule property to the prospective
purchasers for visiting/inspection.
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the House Property
bearing No.590 consisting of ground floor and first
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:23766
RFA No. 447 of 2016
floor situated at 1-B Cross, Domlur Layout,
Bengaluru-560071 measuring east to west 40 ft and
north to south 35 ft and bounded on the
East by : House No.579
West by: Road
North by: House No.589 and
South by: House No.591.
WHEREFORE the Appellant and the Respondents
jointly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
record the above terms of settlement and pass Final
Decree accordingly in the interest of justice and
equity."
5. The compromise petition signed by the parties and
their respective counsel is taken on record.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in terms of
the compromise petition. The compromise petition filed
under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC is ordered to be treated
as part and parcel of this order.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:23766
RFA No. 447 of 2016
7. The Registry is directed to draw final decree in terms
of the compromise petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA
