Smt. Jayamma vs Sri. U Sridhar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4852 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Jayamma vs Sri. U Sridhar on 10 March, 2025

Author: K.Somashekar

Bench: K.Somashekar

                                               -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:9958-DB
                                                        RFA No. 811 of 2020




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
                                           PRESENT

                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

                                               AND

                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

                            REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2020

                   BETWEEN:
                        SMT. JAYAMMA
                        AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
                        WIFE OF SRI T. HANUMANTHAPPA,
                        R/AT NO. 98, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
                        2ND CROSS, ULLAL UPANAGAR,
                        BENGALURU 560 056.
                                                            ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:
                   1.   SRI. U SRIDHAR
Digitally signed        SON OF UMAPATHY
by SUMATHY              AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
KANNAN
Location: HIGH     2.   SRI. U NAVEEN
COURT OF                SON OF UMAPATHY
KARNATAKA
                        AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

                        RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE
                        RESIDING AT
                        BEHIND CHANDRAMAULESHWARA TEMPLE,
                        HUNASAMARANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
                        YELAHANKA TALUK
                        (EARLIER IN BENGALURU NORTH TALUK)
                        BENGALURU 562 157.

                   3.   SRI. S GNANAMURTHY
                        AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
                            -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:9958-DB
                                     RFA No. 811 of 2020




     SON OF N SHIVANNA,
     R/AT NO 120, GROUND FLOOR,
     7TH CROSS, WEAVERS COLONY,
     GOTTEGERE POST,
     BANNERUGATTA ROAD,
     BENGALURU 560 083.

4.   SRI. MAHDEVAMURTHY
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
     SON OF N SHIVANNA,
     RESIDING NEAR CHANDRAMAULESHWARA TEMPLE,
     HUNASAMARANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
     YELAHANKA TALUK
     (EARLIER IN BENGALURU NORTH TALUK)
     BENGALURU 562 157.

5.   SRI. DEVARAJ
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     SON OF SHIVANNA
     RESIDING AT BEHIND CHANDRAMAULESHWARA
     TEMPLE, HUNASAMARANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
     YELAHANKA TALUK
     (EARLIER IN BENGALURU NORTH TALUK)
     BENGALURU 562157.

6.   SRI. CHANDRAKANTHA
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
     SON OF N SHIVANNA
     R/AT NO 1090/816, GROUND FLOOR,
     2ND CROSS, WEAVERS COLONY,
     GOTTEGERE POST, BANNERUGATTA ROAD,
     BENGALURU 560 083.

7.   SRI. S MOHAN
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
     SON OF N SHIVANNA,
     RESIDING AT BEHIND
     CHANDRAMAULESHWARA TEMPLE,
     HUNASAMARANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
     YELAHANKA TALUK
     (EARLIER IN BENGALURU NORTH TALUK)
     BENGALURU 562 157.
                               -3-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:9958-DB
                                        RFA No. 811 of 2020




8.   SRI. SHARADAMMA
     WIFE OF S CHANNABASAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

9.   SMT. CHETHANA SAHUKAR
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
     DAUGHTER OF S CHANNABASAPPA,

10. SMT. CHANDANA SAHUKAR
    AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
    DAUGHTER OF S CHANNABASAPPA,

     RESPONDENTS 8 TO 10 ARE
     RESIDING AT NO 252, SIDDESHWARA,
     5TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
     R M V EXTENSION,
     BENGALURU 560 094.

11. M/S. REDDY HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED
    A REGISTERED COMPANY INCORPORATED
    UNDER THE COMPNIES ACT, 1956,
    HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
    NO 133/1, THE RESIDENCY, 2ND FLOOR,
    RESIDENCY ROAD,
    BENGALURU 560 025.

12. SMT. R CHOODARATNA
    AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
    WIFE OF C.A UMESH,
    DAUGHTER OF SMT LEELAVATHI.

13. SRI. R SANTHOSH
    AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
    SON OF SMT. LEELAVATHI,

     RESPONDENTS 12 AND 13 ARE
     RESIDING AT ARMUGAM BUILDING,
     2ND CROSS, WEAVERS COLONY,
     COTTEGERE POST, BANNERUGATTA ROAD,
     BENGALURU 560 083.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.A.H. RAZVI., ADVOCATE FOR R8, R9 AND R10
    SRI. B.S. RADHANANDHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R11,
                                -4-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:9958-DB
                                                 RFA No. 811 of 2020




   R1, R2 AND R7 ARE SERVED)
     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI
RULE (1) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2017
PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN OS.NO.431/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI ALLOWING
THE IA NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a)(b)(c) AND (d)
OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
       and
       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T


                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree

rendered by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in

O.S.No.431/2015 dated 16.09.2017.

2. Learned counsel Sri Nagaraj appears on behalf of

learned counsel Sri C.Shankar Reddy who is on record for the

appellant. Learned counsel Sri B.S Radhanandhan for

respondent No.11 is present. Learned counsel Sri S.A.H.Razvi

for respondent Nos.8, 9 and 10 is on record but there is no

representation either though video conferencing or present

before the Court physically. Parties are also present.

NC: 2025:KHC:9958-DB

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo for

dismissal of the appeal. At paragraph No.2 of the said memo it

states that the respondent No.11 is the present owner of the

item No.1 to 4 of the schedule property which is involved in the

suit. Hence the matter has been settled by and between the

appellant and respondent No.11 for a valuable settlement of

Rs.45,00,000/-, paid by the respondent No.11 to the appellant.

The appellant has also executed confirmation deed dated

01.03.2025 vide document No.13838/2024-25 on the file of the

Sub-Registrar Byatarayanapura Bangalore in favour of the

respondent No.11 with respect of item No.1 to 4 of the

schedule property. The joint memo is also filed by and

between the appellant and the respondent No.11 reporting the

settlement took place amongst them out of Court. Hence, the

appeal filed by the appellant against the respondent No.1 to 10

and 12 and 13 may be dismissed as not pressed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.

11 have filed joint memorandum and both the parties have

subscribed their signature and confirmed the same today. The

said joint memo reads as under:

NC: 2025:KHC:9958-DB

1. The Appellant herein had claimed that she is the only daughter of Late Dodda Nanjappa who had two children by names Jayamma and N.Shivanna and that but the Item No.1 to 4 of the suit schedule property was conveyed by N.Shivanna alone in favour of Late Channabasappa vide Absolute Sale Deed dated 28.9.1982 vide registration No.2748/1982-83. Further after the death of the said Channabasappa and his wife and children by names S.Sharadamma, Chethana Sahukar and Chandana Sahukar (Respondents No.8, 9 & 10) had conveyed the Item No.1 to 4 of the Schedule Property in favour of the Respondent No.11 as per the terms of Absolute Sale Deed dated 13.3.2014 vide registration No.4637/2013-14 registered in the office of the sub-Registrar Gandhinagar Bangalore.

2. The Appellant had preferred a suit for partition in O.S.No.431/2015 but the same was dismissed by way of rejection of Plaint and hence this appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the said Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.431/2015.

3. However the matter has been settled by and between the Appellant and the Respondent No.11 at the intervention of common well-wishers and counsels representing the Appellant and the Respondent NO.11.

NC: 2025:KHC:9958-DB

4. Hence the dispute has been settled by and between the Appellant and the Respondent No.11 as under:

a) The Appellant shall relinquish and abandon all her claims with respect to the Item No.1 to 4 of the schedule property in favour of Respondent No.11.

b) The Respondent No.11 shall pay a settlement of amount of Rs.45,00,000/- to the Appellant as full and final settlement for her claims against the Respondent No.11 with respect to Item No.1 to 4 of the schedule property.

c) The Appellant shall confirm and affirm all the recitals of the Absolute Sale Deed dated 28.9.1982 vide registration No.2748/1982-83 and Absolute Sale Deed dated 13.3.2014 vide registration No.4637/2013-14 under which the Item No.1 to 4 of the schedule property were conveyed in favour of the Respondent No.11. And further the Appellant shall confirm and affirm the right, title and interest of the Respondent No.11 with respect to the Item No.1 to 4 of the schedule property.

5. Hence the parties have settled the dispute and the Respondent No.11 has paid a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs only) to the Appellant in the following manner:

NC: 2025:KHC:9958-DB

a) Cheque No."002772" for amount of Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Richmond Road, Bangalore.

b) Cheque No."002773" for amount of Rs.20,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Richmond Road, Bangalore.

6. Hence the Appellant hereby acknowledges receipt of the said sum of Rs.45,00,000/- paid as above towards full and final settlement of all her claims against the Respondent No.11 as well as with respect to Item No.1 to 4 of the schedule property.

7. The Appellant has also executed the Confirmation Deed dated 1.3.2025 vide document No.13838/2024-25 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Byatarayanapura Bangalore in pursuance of the mutually agreed settled terms.

8. Hence in compliance of the said mutually agreed terms the Appellant hereby withdraws this appeal without any liberty.

7. Keeping in view the memo for dismissal of the appeal

as against respondent Nos.1 to 10, 12 and 13 and the joint

memo filed by the appellant and respondent No.11, the appeal

NC: 2025:KHC:9958-DB

is disposed of. It is also made clear that the appeal against

respondent Nos.1 to 10, 12 and 13 stands dismissed.

Consequent upon disposal of the appeal, pending

applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

SD/-

(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE

SD/-

(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RJ