Karnataka High Court
Sri Rayappa Siddappa Kallimani vs Sri Sidrayappa on 27 July, 2023
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7890
RSA No. 801 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 801 OF 2008 (DEC-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAYAPPA SIDDAPPA KALLIMANI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1A. SMT. SIDDAVVA W/O. RAYAPPA KALLIMANI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: VANNUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
1B. SIDDAPPA S/O. RAYAPPA KALLIMANI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VANNUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
CHANDRASHEKAR 1C. SIDRAYAPPA S/O. RAYAPPA KALLIMANI,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VANNUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR 1D. SHIVAPPA S/O. RAYAPPA KALLIMANI,
LAXMAN AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.07.28 R/O: VANNUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
12:12:22 -0700 DIST: BELAGAVI.
1E. MALLAVVA W/O. MARUTI HOSATTI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: VANNUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7890
RSA No. 801 of 2008
1F. MANJUNATH S/O. RAYAPPA KALLIMANI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VANNUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.H. MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE REPRESENTS;
SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE FOR A1(A-F)
AND:
1. SRI. SIDRAYAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA GIDABEERANNAVARAGE MAJOR,
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.)
1A. SIDDAPPA S/O. SIDARAYAPPA GIDABEERANNAVAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: 425/1, VANNUR- 591121,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
1B. SIDARAYAPPA
S/O. SIDARAYAPPA GIDABEERANNAVAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: 425/1, VANNUR- 591121,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
1C. SMT. YAKKAVVA SIDARAYAPPA GIDABEERANNAVAR,
AGE: 85 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: 425/1, VANNUR- 591121,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. BHIMAPPA
S/O. SIDDAPPA GIDABEERANNAVARAGE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VANNUR, TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-C)
AND R2)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7890
RSA No. 801 of 2008
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE 24.10.2007 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.12/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN), BAILHONGAL, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.18.1.2005 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.101/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN), BAILHONGAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Shri. S. H. Mittalkod, Shri. Laxman T. Mantagani
present with their respective parties.
2. Proposed appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) are present
physically. Proposed appellant Nos.1(b) and 1(d)
appeared through video call as they could not join the
video conference from the Court website on account of
some technical glitch. They have been identified by Shri.
S. H. Mittalkod and their identification is not disputed by
Shri. Laxman T. Mantagani.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7890
RSA No. 801 of 2008
3. Proposed respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(b) are
present physically. Proposed respondent No.1(c) appeared
through video call as she could not join the video
conference from the Court website on account of some
technical glitch. They have been identified by Shri. Laxman
T. Mantagani and their identification is not disputed by
Shri. S. H. Mittalkod.
4. Applications are filed to bring the legal
representatives of deceased appellant and deceased first
respondent by their respective counsel. There is a delay in
filing the application.
5. Taking note of intrinsic issues involved and
parties also want to settle the dispute amicably,
applications filed to bring the legal representatives of
deceased appellant and deceased respondent needs to be
allowed by condoning the delay as well as setting aside
abetment.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7890
RSA No. 801 of 2008
6. Accordingly, all applications are allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to amend the
cause title forthwith. Learned counsel for the appellant is
directed to file amended appeal memo.
7. Amended appeal memo is filed is taken on
record.
8. Parties present. Parties submit a compromise
petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil
Procedure signed by them and their respective counsels.
9. Signatures of proposed appellant Nos.1(b), 1(d)
and proposed respondent No.1(c) are not obtained on
compromise petition. But their respective counsels have
signed the compromise petition.
10. Insofar as appellant No.1(b) and 1(d) are
concerned, they are said to be serving in Military service
and they could not attend the Court for want of necessary
leave. Insofar as respondent No.1(c) is concerned, she is
80 years old and could not be present. Since appellant
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7890
RSA No. 801 of 2008
Nos.1(b) and 1(d) and respondent No.1(c) confirmed
through video call that for and on behalf of them their
advocates have signed the compromise petition, they have
no objection for the matter to be disposed off by accepting
the compromise.
11. The contents of the compromise petition are
read over to the parties and they submit that there is no
force, undue influence or coercion in reaching out the
compromise terms and it is voluntary.
12. Therefore, there is no impediment to dispose of
this appeal in terms of the compromise petition.
13. Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The suit is decreed in terms of the compromise
petition.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7890
RSA No. 801 of 2008
Registry is directed to pass a decree as per the
compromise petition appending a copy of the compromise
petition as part of the decree.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
