B S Nataraj vs B S Umesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 981 Kant

Karnataka High Court

B S Nataraj vs B S Umesh on 11 July, 2025

                                            -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:25539
                                                      WP No. 43786 of 2019


                 HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                          BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 43786 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
                 BETWEEN:
                 B S NATARAJ,
                 S/O LATE B.S. SADASHIVAIAH,
                 AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
                 R/AT MUDALIAR STREET,
                 ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103,

                 ALSO AT

                 R/AT NO.90, 4TH BLOCK,
                 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
                 BANASHANKARI, 3RD STAGE,
                 BANGALORE-560 085.
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                 (BY SRI. VAGEESHA N.,ADVOCATE)
                 AND:

Digitally        B S UMESH,
signed by        S/O LATE SRI.B.S. SADASHIVAIAH,
MADHURI S        AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
Location: High   KASIM SAIT LANE,
Court of         OPP. RAILWAY STATION,
Karnataka        ARASISKERE-573 103.
                                                            ...RESPONDENT
                 (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA V., ADVOCATE)
                       THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
                 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
                 DATED 13.06.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
                 JMFC,    AT  ARASIKERE,   ON   I.A.NO.1,  PASSED   IN
                 O.S.NO.58/1999, PRODUCED AT ANNX-X AND ETC.
                                    -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:25539
                                              WP No. 43786 of 2019


HC-KAR




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL


                            ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed seeking for following relief by the

petitioner;

"1. Calling for the records in O.S.No.58/1999 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Arasikere,

2. Quashing the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Arasikere, on I.A.No.1, passed in O.S.No.58/1999, produced at ANNEXURE-X.

3. Allow the application filed by the petitioner under order 23 rule 3(A) read with Section 151 of the code of civil procedure 1908, produced at ANNEXURE-S.

4. Consequently recall the judgment and decree dated 11.03.1999, produced at ANNEXURE-D.

5. Consequently, restore the suit in O.S.no.58/1999 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, and JMFC, at Arasikere, produced at ANNEXURE-B.

6. Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Sri.Vageesha N., learned counsel appearing for

petitioner and Sri.Raghavendra V., learned counsel appearing

NC: 2025:KHC:25539

HC-KAR

for respondent are present and jointly submit that the parties

to the proceedings have settled their dispute and are filing a

memorandum of compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3

read with Section 151 of CPC. It is submitted that the parties

have amicably resolved the said dispute and voluntarily signed

the agreement of settlement. The respective counsel have

identified the respective parties, who are present before the

court.

3. The compromise entered between the parties, reads

as under;

"1. That the petitioner, respondent, their mother Late. Smt.Lalithamma and father Late. Sadashivaiah B. S, constituted a Hindu Joint family and possessed certain movable and immovable properties. After the death of Sri. B. S. Sadashivaiah differences cropped up which led the petitioner in filing of a suit for partition and for separate possession of properties in O. S. No. 58/1999 on the file of Civil Judge Senior Division, Arasikere, against the respondents and his mother Smt. Lalithamma. The said suit came to be decreed in terms of a compromise petition which was filed therein. As per the compromise decree the petitioner was allotted with Item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties therein, and the

and it was also stated in the compromise

NC: 2025:KHC:25539

HC-KAR

petition that after the death of the mother of the petitioner and the respondent Item No.3 of the property was to be allotted to the respondent herein. Hence, the compromise decree was drawn up.

2. Subsequently, the petitioner gifted the item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties in favour of his wife Smt. Nalina through a registered gift deed dated 02/08/2004 registered as document No.ARS-1-00703- 2004-05, registered in Book No. I and stored in CD No. ARSD4, registered in Office of Sub-registrar, Arasikere.

3. It is submitted that the site bearing Old No.296 new Chalta No.311, measuring East to West 7.10 mtrs and North to South 9.90 mtrs (27x33) feet bounded on East by Road, West by property of Mallikarjunappa and Kannamma Ramu, North by Road, South by property of the respondent, as well as the item No.3 of the compromise decree was the subject matter of a recovery proceeding in Execution No.265/1997 arising out of O.S.No.17/1988 wherein which the said properties were auctioned by the decree holder i.e., Kannika Finance Corporation though which the wife the respondent Smt. Sudha Umesh purchased the said properties though auction.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner, his children and his wife have filed a suit for partition and for separate possession in O.S.No.27/2018, challenging the Judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.58/1999 which came to rejected resulting in filing of RFA No. 1936/2019 before this Hon'ble Court, which is still pending consideration. Further,

NC: 2025:KHC:25539

HC-KAR

the daughter of the respondent Smt. Moulya has filed another suit for partition and for separate possession in O.S.No.263/2017 before the Junior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere, which is still pending adjudication.

5. The above writ petition arising out of an order passed in O.S.No.58/1999 on IA.No.1 filed under Order 23 Rule 3(A) of CPC. During pendency of the above writ petition as well as the suits and in order to put quietus to the long history of disputes the parties herein as well as their family members have decided to settle the matter amicably. Therefore, it is agreed and settled that the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.58/1999 is binding and conclusive and that in view of the auction of Item No.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties in favour of the wife of the respondent the parties have ratified the said auction thereby restricting their right, title and interest over the rest of the properties as contained in the compromise petition filed in O. S.No.58/1999. Hence, the respondent hereby acknowledges the right, title and

of the property which was allotted to him now gifted in favour of the wife of the petitioner Smt. Nalina. Hence, the respondent has no claim whatsoever against the said property which is the subject matter of the gift in favour Smt. Nalina executed by the petitioner, in so far as its relates to item No.1 of the suit property. It is agreed that the daughter of the respondent has consented for the above said compromise. And she has agreed for the compromise petition to be filed in the suit bearing

NC: 2025:KHC:25539

HC-KAR

No.263/2017. Likewise the petitioner herein acknowledges the title of the respondent in so far as the properties allotted to him through the said compromise petition filed in O. S. No.58/1999 and also the right, title and possession of wife of respondent Smt. Sudha Umesh over item No.2 and 3 of properties in the said compromise petition by virtue of the auction purchase.

6. Further, in view of the above said compromise the petitioner as well as his family members have agreed to withdraw the appeal filed before this Hon'ble court in RFA.No.1936/2019.

7. In view of the above settlement between the parties it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice and equity."

The compromise petition is accepted as the same is

voluntary and is not in violation of law or opposed to public

policy. In view of aforesaid compromise petition, the writ

petition stands disposed of, in terms of the compromise

petition.

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE AKV