Karnataka High Court
Shri Venkataswamy vs Shri Sekharappa on 12 July, 2023
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:24138
RSA No. 1173 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1173 OF 2016 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SHRI VENKATASWAMY
SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS LRS,
1. SMT.MUNIVENKATAMMA,
W/O LATE SHRI VENKATASWAMY,
(SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY LR'S,
APPELLANTS No.2 TO 4)
2. SHRI V.CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE SHRI VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.8, 6TH CROSS,
VASANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. SHRI RAVI
Digitally signed by S/O LATE SHRI VENKATASWAMY,
THEJASKUMAR N
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/AT NILAKANTAPURA VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA
CHAMARAHALLI POST,
UTHUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 563 103.
4. SMT.SUJATHA
D/O LATE SHRI VENKATASWAMY,
W/O SHRI CHENNARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT HOSURNBAND VILLAGE,
KANNUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562 149.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:24138
RSA No. 1173 of 2016
5. SHRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA
H/O LATE SMT.SARASWATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
6. SMT.MALA
D/O LATE SARASWATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
7. SMT.BABY
D/O LATE SMT.SARASWATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
APPELLANTS 5 TO 7 ARE
R/AT AYYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BETHAMANGALA HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI SEKHARAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S,
1(a) SMT.PADMAMMA
W/O LATE SHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
1(b) SHRI. MUNE GOWDA
S/O LATE SHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
BOTH R/AT
MITTIGIGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDARALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
1(c) SMT.ANITHA
W/O ANANTH
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:24138
RSA No. 1173 of 2016
D/O LATE SHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
2. SMT.HEMAKKA,
D/O LATE KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
AS PER ORDER DATED 12.07.2023
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 8
ARE DELETED
9. SHRI NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA,
H/O SMT. PADMAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
10. SMT.ROOPA
D/O NARAYANAPPA,
W/O LATE MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
11. SMT.MAMATHA
D/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 9 TO 11 ARE
R/AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
BHUVANAGIRI EXTENSION,
BANASWADI POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.MUNIRAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R1[a-c], 2, 9 TO 11)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CPC., SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:24138
RSA No. 1173 of 2016
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR REPORTING
SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.G.A.Srikante Gowda., learned counsel for appellants
and Sri.S.Muniraju., learned counsel for respondents 1(a - c),
2, 9 to 11 have appeared in person.
Learned counsel for the respective parties submits that
appellants and respondents 1(a - c), 2, 9 to 11 have arrived at
a settlement and a Compromise Petition under Order 23 Rule 3
of CPC has been filed by both the parties. Counsel therefore,
submits that the Compromise Petition may be placed on record
and the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the Compromise
arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the respective parties submits that
Sri.Chandrappa - Special Power of Attorney holder of appellants
3 to 7 and Smt.Padmamma, Sri.Mune Gowda, Smt.Anitha,
Smt.Hemakka, Sri.Narayanappa, Smt.Roopa and Smt.Mamatha
- respondents 1(a - c), 2, 9 to 11 are personally present before
the Court and they have been duly identified by their respective
counsel.
NC: 2023:KHC:24138
RSA No. 1173 of 2016
When queried by this Court, the parties state that they
have indeed settled their dispute and have arrived at a
compromise and that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of
the compromise arrived at by them. They further state that
they have arrived at a settlement on their own free volition
without there being any coercion or undue influence from any
side.
Counsel jointly submits that the Compromise Petition may
be taken on record and the appeal may be disposed of in terms
of the Compromise Petition.
The Compromise Petition is taken on record. I have
perused the same with utmost care.
On perusal of the Compromise Petition, this Court finds
that the terms of Compromise Petition are lawful and that there
is no legal impediment for accepting the same.
In terms of the compromise arrived at between the
parties, the Judgment and Decree dated:06.06.2016 passed by
the Court of Prl.District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru in R.A.No.6/2016 in so far as it relates to counter
NC: 2023:KHC:24138
RSA No. 1173 of 2016
claim of LRs of respondent No.1 i.e., Respondents 1(a) to (c),
2, 9 to 11 in respect of Sy.No.108/4 is set-aside.
SCHEDULE
All that part and parcel of the land bearing
Sy.No.108/4 measuring 25 guntas of Kannuru
Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, and Bangalore East Taluk
and bounded on:
East by : Chandrappa's property
West by: Road
North : Channel
South : Shanbogh sathyappa's property
The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly, disposed of
in terms of the Compromise Petition.
The Registry concerned is hereby directed to draw the
decree in terms of the Compromise Petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
