Karnataka High Court
Sri R Narasimha Raju vs Sri R Mohan Krishna on 8 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31727-DB
RFA No.1079/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1079/2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. R. NARASIMHA RAJU,
S/O. LATE N. RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.363/6, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
18TH CROSS, 'G' CROSS,
SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.LOKESH L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. R. MOHAN KRISHNA,
S/O. LATE N. RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
Digitally
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA 1(A). SMT. THARA M,
Location: D/O LATE SRI. MOHAN KRISHNA R,
High Court of
Karnataka W/O SRI. RAJKUMAR M.D,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.11, ANKALAPPA MUTT LANE,
NARAYANA SHETTYPET, BENGALURU - 02.
2. SMT. LALITHA,
W/O LATE. R MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
3. SRI. M. SANTHOSH,
S/O LATE R. MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
4. SRI.YADUNANDAN,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31727-DB
RFA No.1079/2021
S/O LATE. R MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
R/AT NO. 11, ANKALAPPA MUTT LANE,
NARAYANASHETTYPET,
BANGALORE - 560 002
5. SMT. R. YASHODAMMA,
D/O. LATE N RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
W/O. R. CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31, 13TH CROSS,
CUBBONPET, BANGALORE - 560 002.
6. SMT. M. PREMALATHA,
W/O. SRI. R. MOHANKIRSHNA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 11, ANKALAPPA MUTT LANE,
NARAYANASHETTYPET,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
(ALSO LEGAL HEIR OF RESPONDENT NO.1)
7. SMT. M. LALITHA
W/O. SRI. R MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YARS,
R/AT NO.11, ANKALAPPA MUTT LANE,
NARAYANASHETTYPET, BANGALORE - 560 002.
(DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 08.08.2024)
8. SRI. M. RAVISHANKAR,
W/O. SRI. R. MOHAN KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 11, ANKALAPPA MUTT LANE,
NARAYANASHETTYPET,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
(ALSO LEGAL HEIR OF RESPONDENT NO.1)
9. SMT. UMADEVI,
W/O. LATE. N VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
10. SRI. V. PURUSHOTHAM,
S/O. LATE. N VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:31727-DB
RFA No.1079/2021
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 590,
LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA,
9TH CROSS, WEAVERS COLONY,
GOTTIGERE, BANGALORE - 560 083 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA H.A, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A),
R2 TO R6 AND R8;
SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V, ADVOCATE FOR R9 AND R10)
THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
21.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.17/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE
(CCH-16), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
Both counsel file memo stating that respondent Nos.2
and 7 are one and the same and there is duplication in
impleading them. On verification of records, submission is
found correct. Therefore, the appellant is permitted to strike off
respondent No.7 from array of the parties. In view of striking
off respondent No.7, office objection regarding furnishing
process fee to respondent No.7 overruled.
2. Learned counsel for proposed respondent No.1(a)
submits the second set of I.A.Nos.1 to 3/2024.
NC: 2024:KHC:31727-DB
3. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes for
allowing I.A.Nos.1 to 3/2024.
4. Respondent No.1 reportedly died on 29.09.2023. It
is further submitted that he is survived by respondent Nos.6, 8
and proposed respondent No.1(a). Since the relationship is
admitted and their legal representatives are already on record,
delay of 24 days in filing IA No.3/2024 is condoned, abatement
of the appeal against respondent No.1 is hereby set aside and
proposed respondent No.1(a) is permitted to come on record as
respondent No.1(a). The applications are allowed accordingly.
Appellant's counsel shall amend the cause-title of the
appeal memo and furnish amended copy of the appeal memo.
5. Both parties and their respective counsel are
present. The parties are duly identified by their respective
counsel. Parties submit copies of their Aadhar cards.
6. Heard on the compromise petition.
7. Parties admit execution of compromise petition.
Appellant/plaintiff admits the receipt of three cheques as
mentioned in para No.4 of the compromise petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:31727-DB
8. Satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and
admissible under law. The same is recorded.
9. In view of the compromise, appeal deserves to be
allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order of dismissal of
OS No.17/2008 on the file of XVII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-16),
dated 21.09.2021, is hereby set-aside.
3. The suit in OS.No.17/2008 is decreed in terms of
the compromise petition.
Draw decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
CT: BHK
