Karnataka High Court
Ujjappa vs Sri Danappa on 13 February, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6384
RSA No. 44 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2008 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. UJJAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1(a) SMT.RATHANAMMA
W/O LATE UJJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
1(b) SMT. A. CHANDRAKALA
D/O LATE UJJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
1(c) SRI VEERASHEKHARAPPA
S/O LATE UJJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH 1(d) SRI PRABHULINGAPPA A @ KARIBASAPPA
COURT OF S/O LATE UJJAPPA
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
1(e). SMT. SOWBHAGYA
D/O LATE UJJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NELAVAGILU,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 427.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. SIDDALINGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6384
RSA No. 44 of 2008
AND:
1. SRI DANAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O HALAGODDANAPPA
SHIKARIUR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
SMT. NEELAMMA
W/O LATE MALLANAGOWDA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
2. SRI SIDDALINGAPPA
ADOPTED SON MALLANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
SHIKARIUR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427.
SRI SIDDAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR
3. SMT.NEELAMMA
W/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O HALAGODDANAPPA
SHIKARPUR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427.
4. SRI E. GOVINDAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
4(a) DEVRAJ
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
4(b) SRIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
4(c) RAVI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6384
RSA No. 44 of 2008
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
NELAVAGILU, SHIKARIPUR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3, R2,
R4(a), R4(b) & R4(c) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.12.2006 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.23/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, I FAST
TRACK COURT, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.07.1993
PASSED IN O.S.NO.66/1988 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE,
SAGAR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The parties have filed the compromise petition.
The appellant No.1(d) is present. He is the power of
attorney holder of respondent Nos.1(a) to (c) and (e). The
copy of the General Power of Attorney is produced along
with compromise petition and original document is
compared with notarized copy of power of attorney. The
same is returned to the appellant.
NC: 2024:KHC:6384
2. The respondent No.1 is present and for other
respondents, notice has been served, but unrepresented.
3. In terms of the compromise, judgment and
decree passed by the appellate Court has to be modified
as out of 20 guntas of property in item No.3, the appellant
agreed to give 10 guntas out of 20 guntas in favour of the
respondent No.1. The appellant has also agreed to give
entire item No.4 of the property in favour of the
respondent No.1.
4. The terms of the compromise has been
explained to the parties and also parties have understood
the same and accepted the same. The respective counsel
and also the respective parties have also attested the
compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. In
respect of other respondents is concerned, they have
unrepresented and the same is stated in the compromise
petition and compromise only between appellants and
respondent No.1. Hence, the compromise petition is
allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:6384
5. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in
terms of the compromise.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RHS
