Karnataka High Court
Sri Y Surendra S/O Late Upendra vs Smt Nalini Srivatsa W/O Srivatsa on 27 July, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:26252
RFA No. 91 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2008 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI Y SURENDRA
S/O LATE UPENDRA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
1(a) SMT. PREMAJYOTHY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
W/O LATE Y SURENDRA.
1(b) SMT. SHEETAL
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O LATE Y SURENDRA.
1(c) SRI Y RAVINDRA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
Digitally signed
W/O LATE Y SURENDRA
by
DHANALAKSHMI ALL ARE R/AT NO.7, 5TH CROSS
MURTHY LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
Location: High BANGALORE-560 027.
Court of
Karnataka ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.T.SWAROOP., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT NALINI SRIVATSA
W/O SRIVATSA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
0R/AT 94, 13TH MAIN
27TH 'A' CROSS, 4TH BLOCK
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:26252
RFA No. 91 of 2008
JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W
SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED:18.12.07 PASSED IN OS NO.4472/99 ON THE FILE OF
THE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC
challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2007
passed by the XXII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in
O.S.No.4472/1999, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff
for partition and separate possession has been partly
decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:26252
RFA No. 91 of 2008
3. The plaintiff filed the suit i.e.,
O.S.No.4472/1999 against the defendant for partition and
separate possession. The learned Judge of the Trial Court
vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.2007 has partly
decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the
defendant has filed this appeal.
4. During the pendency of this appeal, both the
parties have compromised the matter. The relationship of
the parties is not in dispute. The learned counsel
appearing for the parties have filed a compromise petition
under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC.
The contents of the compromise petition is extracted
hereinbelow:
"MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE PETITION
FILEDUNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVILPROCEDURE,
The parties above named respectfully submits as
follows:
1. It is submitted that, the suit in O.S.No.4472/1999
had been filed before the XXII Addl. City Civil Judge,
NC: 2023:KHC:26252
RFA No. 91 of 2008
Bengaluru City, by the respondent/plaintiff against
the appellant/defendant for partition and separate
possession of one half share in the suit schedule
property. The said Suit came to be partly decreed by
Judgment dated 18.12.2007.
2. That, the legality and correctness of the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court has been
questioned in the above appeal by the defendant.
During the pendency of the above appeal the
defendant/appellant died on 24.09.2020 and his
Legal representatives have been brought on record
who are the appellant Nos.1(a) to (c).
3. That, during the pendency of the above Appeal, at
the advice and intervention of their relatives,
common friends and well-wishers, the parties to the
above Appeal, i.e., the L.Rs. of the appellant and the
respondent have decided to settle the dispute
amicably as hereunder.
i) It is agreed by all the parties that, the respondent
shall be entitled to 35% share in the suit schedule
property, and the appellant Nos. 1(a), 1(b) & 1(c)
are equally entitled for remaining 65% share in the
suit schedule property.
ii) In view of the fact that the suit schedule property
cannot be divided conveniently to enjoy the same
NC: 2023:KHC:26252
RFA No. 91 of 2008
independently by the appellants and the respondent
the parties have agreed to sell the schedule property
together and share the sale proceeds in the aforesaid
ratio Viz., the appellant. nos.1(a), 1(b) & 1(c)
together shall be equally entitle to receive 65% of
the sale consideration and the Respondent is entitle
to receive 35% of the sale consideration.
iii) It is mutually agreed by the parties that the
schedule property shall be sold jointly by the
appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) and the respondent and
ensure sale of the property as early as possible
within 6 months from today.
iv) It is mutually agreed by the parties that, it is
open for both the parties to bring a suitable buyer
and the entire sale negotiations shall be done in the
presence of both parties and sale consideration
agreed to by the parties. In the event of both parties
could not bring a suitable buyer within a period of 6
months, it is mutually agreed to bring the property
for sale by advertising in news paper. The cost of
publication in the news paper shall be shared by both
the parties in the same proportion of their
entitlement of share in the property.
v) It is mutually agreed by both the parties that they
shall seek return of the documents produced by them
in the trial court and keep the same in their custody
NC: 2023:KHC:26252
RFA No. 91 of 2008
till the sale negations are concluded. At the time
execution of sale deed in favour of the prospective
buyer both parties shall hand over the documents to
the buyer.
vi) It is mutually agreed by the parties that in the
event of there being no consensus in the matter of
sale of the property, it is open for the parties to seek
intervention of court for sale and distribution of the
sale consideration in terms of the ratio agreed upon
in this compromise.
Vii) Both the parties agreed that the katha of the
Schedule Property shall be transferred in the joint
names of the appellant and Respondent, and they
agreed to file application before BBMP in that regard.
WHEREFORE, the appellant Nos. 1(a) to (c) and
the respondent in that above named humbly pray
that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this
compromise petition, modify the impugned judgment
& decree dated 18.12.2007 in OS No.4472/1999
passed by the XXII Addl. City Civil Judge and dispose
off the above appeal in terms of this compromise and
further direct the registry to draw the decree in
terms of this compromise, in the ends of justice.
NC: 2023:KHC:26252
RFA No. 91 of 2008
SCHEDULE
All the piece and parcel of house property bearing
no.7, 5th Cross, Lakshmi Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-560 027 together with structure consisting
of Ground and First Floor and the entire site
measuring East to West 60' and North to South 35'
and bounded on the:
East by : Drain and thereafter private property
West by : Road
North by : property No.6
South by : property No.8"
5. The parties are present before the Court and
they have been identified by their respective counsel. The
identity cards of the respective parties have been verified.
The contents of the compromise petition have been read
over to the parties in the language known to them. They
have accepted the same. There is no legal or factual
inhibition to accept the compromise, as the same is out of
their volition.
NC: 2023:KHC:26252
RFA No. 91 of 2008
6. The compromise petition signed by the parties
and their respective counsel is taken on record.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in terms
of the compromise petition. The compromise petition filed
under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC is ordered to be treated as
part and parcel of this order.
The Registry is directed to draw final decree in terms
of the compromise petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
