Karnataka High Court
Smt Kumudavathi vs Smt Lakshmi on 17 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
RSA No. 283 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.283 OF 2014 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KUMADAVATHI
W/O.VASAPPA,
D/O.LATE MANJAPPA
& LATE SMT.PARVATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
1.1. S. NAGARAJA,
AGED 51 YEARS,
1.2. H.S.NATARAJA,
AGED 47 YEARS,
Digitally signed by BOTH ARE SONS OF
PRAMILA G V
Location: HIGH COURT LATE H.L.VASAPPA AND LATE KUMUDAVATHI,
OF KARNATAKA
R/AT JAYAPURA VILLAGE,
GUDDEKOPPA POST,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
SHIMOGA-577414.
2. SMT. VENKAMMA
W/O. S.M.NAGARAJ,
D/O. LATE MANJAPPA
& LATE SMT.PARVATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
RSA No. 283 of 2014
HC-KAR
R/AT JAYAPURA VILLAGE,
GUDDEKOPPA POST,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRAKASH G.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMI
W/O.LATE PANDURANGA,
D/O. LATE HOOVAPPA,
AGED 54 YEARS,
R/AT T.B.ROAD,
N.R.PURA TOWN,
N.R.PURA POST,
N.R.PURA TALUK - 577134.
2. SMT. MANJULA
W/O. HARISH,
D/O. LATE HOOVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT SOPPUGUDDE,
THIRTHAHALLI TOWN-577432.
3. SMT. SULOCHANA
W/O. THEJAPPA
D/O. LATE HOOVAPPA,
AGED 46 YEARS,
R/AT BETTAMAKKI EXTENSION,
SEEBINAKERE POST,
THIRTHAHALLI TOWN - 577432.
4. SMT. BELLAMMA
W/O. LATE C.HOOVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT ____YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
RSA No. 283 of 2014
HC-KAR
R/AT ARAGA VILLAGE & PSOT,
THIRTHAHALLI TOWN-577432.
ALL ARE FEMALE LEGAL HEIRS OF
LATE SRI.HOOVAPPA
5. SMT. RAJIVI
W/O. LATE KRISHNAMURTHY,
DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE HOOVAPPA,
AGED 55 YEARS,
6. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O.LATE KRISHNAMURTHY,
& GRAND-SON OF LATE HOOVAPPA,
AGED 30 YEARS,
7. KUM. UMA
D/O. LATE KRISHNAMURTHY,
& GRAND-DAUGHTER OF LATE HOOVAPPA,
AGED 28 YEARS,
ALL ARE LRs OF KRISHNAMURTHY,
FIRST SON OF LATE HOOVAPPA,
ALL ARE R/AT SEEGEMALE,
ARAGA TOWN, ARAGA POST,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432
8. PUNDARIKA
S/O LATE SRI. HOOVAPPA,
AGED 69 YEARS,
9. VITTALA
S/O LATE SRI.HOOVAPPA,
AGED 66 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
RSA No. 283 of 2014
HC-KAR
10. BHASKARA
S/O LATE SRI. HOOVAPPA,
AGED 64 YEARS,
11. VIJAYENDRA
S/O LATE SRI. HOOVAPPA,
AGED 64 YEARS,
12. RAMESHA
S/O. LATE HOOVAPPA,
AGED 62 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SEEGEMALE,
ARAGA TOWN, ARAGA POST,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432.
13. PADMAVATHAMMA
W/O.LATE KALASAPPA,
DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE SRI.HOOVAPPA,
AGED 72 YEARS
14. SOMASHEKARA
S/O. LATE KALASAPPA,
GRAND SON OF LATE SRI.HOOVAPPA,
AGED 66 YEARS
15. DEVADASA
S/O LATE KALASAPPA,
GRAND SON OF LATE SRI. HOOVAPPA,
AGED 62 YEARS
16. NAGAMMA
W/O LATE VASAPPA,
AGED 69 YEARS,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
RSA No. 283 of 2014
HC-KAR
17. DAKAPPA
S/O LATE VASAPPA,
AGED 60 YEARS,
18. UMESHA @ CHANDRASHEKHARA
S/O LATE VASAPPA,
AGED 58 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF SEEGEMALE,
AGARA TOWN, AGARA POST,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432.
WHILE FILING OF THE SUIT D2 TO 7
DEFENDANTS BEFORE TRIAL COURT AS
PER ORDER ON I.A. NO.3 IN O.S.
THEY WERE TRANSPOSED AS PLAINTIFF 2 TO 7
19. SEETHAMMA
W/O. N.R.SUBRAMANYA,
D/O. LATE KALASAPPA,
AGED 46 YEARS,
20. PUTTAMMA
W/O. GOVINDAPPA,
D/O. LATE KALASAPPA,
AGED 44 YEARS,
21. DAKAMMA
W/O. SHIVANNA,
D/O. LATE KALASAPPA,
AGED 42 YEARS,
22. SHARADAMMA
W/O. CHIDAMBARA,
D/O. LATE KALASAPPA,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
RSA No. 283 of 2014
HC-KAR
AGED 38 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT
SEEGEMALE, ARAGA TOWN,
ARAGA POST,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.T.GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADV. FOR R1-R12, R15, R19,
R21, R22; R13-DECEASED; V/O DT: 30.06.2016 R14 & R15
ARE TREATED AS LRs OF DECEASED-13; R16, R17, R18 ARE
SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R20(A), R20(B), R20(C) ARE
SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 26.7.2013 PASSED
IN R.A.NO.102/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE, SHIMOGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 21.11.2009 PASSED IN
OS.NO.227/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
(SWR.DN) & C.J.M., SHIMOGA.TRAIL COURT DECREED THE
SUIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
RSA No. 283 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is against the concurrent finding in the suit
for specific performance to enforce the agreement for partition
dated 13.12.1993.
2. The suit is filed on the premise that the suit
property was granted to the family of the appellants and
respondents by the Land Tribunal on an application filed under
Form No. 7 seeking occupancy right.
3. The suit was resisted on the premise that no such
agreement was entered into between the parties.
4. The trial Court rejected the defendant's contention
and the suit is consequently decreed. The defendant filed the
first appeal. The first appeal is also dismissed, concurring with
the findings supported by the trial Court. Hence the present
second appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for
defendants/appellants would submit as under:
Originally one Gopalanayak held the property as a tenant
and died intestate. He had 4 sons namely Manjappa, Kalsappa,
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
HC-KAR
Hoovappa and Vasappa. On 05.04.1959, four brothers
partitioned the family properties and the suit property was
allotted to the share of Manjappa. Hoovappa, the brother of
Manjappa, filed a suit in OS No. 388/1978 for partition and
separate possession and the said suit was renumbered as OS
No. 104/1982. The said suit was dismissed on 07.04.1983 on
the premise that there is already a partition in respect of the
suit property.
6. Plaintiff further claims that against the said
judgment and decree, an appeal is filed in RA No.37/1983 and
said appeal is also dismissed on 22.03.1989. Then the
defendant Hoovappa filed RSA No.489/1989 and the said
appeal is dismissed on 17.09.1997.
7. It is also stated that initially Form No.7 was filed by
Manjappa's wife Parvathamma seeking occupancy right and
said application was allowed and the counter claim by
Hoovappa seeking occupancy right was rejected by the
Tribunal. Challenging the said order, Writ Petition
No.4421/1982 was filed and said writ petition was allowed and
the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
HC-KAR
consideration in terms of order dated 05.04.1983. Further, the
Tribunal granted occupancy right to Hoovappa as well as
Parvathamma and other 2 members of the family. The said
order was questioned by Parvathamma by filing
WP.No.39229/1992. When WP No.39229/1992 and RSA No.
489/1989 were pending consideration, without the knowledge
of Parvathamma, an application is filed stating that the parties
have entered into an agreement to partition the suit properties
despite the counsel for Paravathamma pleading ignorance
about the alleged settlement. Writ Petition No.39229/1992 was
dismissed vide order dated 26.08.1999. Consequently, based
on the similar submission that the dispute is settled in terms of
the partition agreement dated 13.12.1993, RSA No.489/1989
was also dismissed on 17.09.1997.
8. Learned counsel for appellants would further submit
that challenging the order of dismissal in WP No.39229/1992,
the Writ Appeal was filed and the same was disposed of,
reserving liberty to appellant in the writ appeal to file a Review
Petition assailing the order passed in Writ Petition
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
HC-KAR
No.39229/1992. It is submitted that Review petition No.
55/2002 was dismissed on the ground of delay.
9. In the light of aforementioned facts and
circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants would submit
that the Plaintiffs/respondents filed OS No.227/1996 for specific
performance of the contract for partition and same is decreed
on the premise that Parvathamma agreed to accept
Rs.70,000/- in lieu of sharing the family properties.
10. It is urged on behalf of appellants that the
agreement for sale is outcome of fraud and Parvathamma's
signature was taken without her knowledge and without
disclosing the contents of the alleged agreement for partition.
Thus, it is the contention that the suit could not have been
decreed as Parvathamma has not consented for agreement to
partition the properties.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondents would
submit that Parvathamma signed the agreement for partition
and accordingly RSA No.489/1989 is disposed of drawing
decree as per the agreement for partition and Parvathamma
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
HC-KAR
voluntarily agreed to settle the dispute and signed the
agreement for partition.
12. It is urged that the judgment in RSA No.489/1989
is not questioned as such, the present appeal is filed
challenging the decree for specific performance to register the
partition recorded in RSA 489/1989 is not maintainable.
13. This Court has considered the contentions raised in
the plaint and perused the records.
14. If the decree for specific performance passed by the
Trial Court is pursuant to the compromise decree passed in
RSA.No.489/1989, then one cannot find fault with the
judgment and decree in a suit for specific performance to
register the compromise. The reason is that the rights of the
parties are settled in terms of decree in RSA 489/ 1989 passed
on 17.09.1997 as the said order has not been questioned.
15. The only question that requires consideration is that
whether the partition agreement was a subject matter of
compromise in RSA No.489/1989?
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
HC-KAR
16. This Court has considered the contentions of
the parties.
17. The judgment in RSA.No.489/1989, which is
delivered on 17.09.1997 reads as under:
"Counsel for the appellant produced translated copy
of the partition deed said to have came into effect in
1993. Of course, the counsel for respondents 2 & 4 pleads
ignorance of such arrangements as he has not been
informed about the same by his client. Further, believing
the representation of the counsel for the appellant, the
second appeal is dismissed recording the partition in this
case. Respondents 2 & 4 alone objects while other
respondents agrees. Therefore, the second appeal is
dismissed in view of the terms of the partition deed."
18. Pursuant to the aforementioned judgment, the
decree is passed by this Court. The judgment referred to above
would clearly indicate that the counsel for respondent
Nos.2 and 4 pleaded ignorance about the settlement/partition
reported by the counsel for the appellant in the said appeal.
19. This Court has recorded a finding that respondent
Nos.2 and 4 objected to the said settlement. This Court
dismissed the appeal pursuant to the terms of the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
HC-KAR
settlement/partition deed. Based on the terms of the
settlement/partition deed produced before the Court, the
decree is drawn.
20. The suit for specific performance to register the
agreement to partition was filed in the year 1996, when the
second in RSA No.489/1989 was pending before this Court. The
suit in O.S.No.227/1996 was for specific performance of the
partition deed dated 13.12.1993.
21. Defendant No.1-Parvathamma in the said suit did
not questioned the decree passed by this Court in
RSA.No.489/1989. The decree passed by this Court was
produced at Ex.P3. The suit in O.S.No.227/1996 came to be
decreed on 21.11.2009. Thus, it is apparent to note that the
decree passed by this Court in RSA.No.489/1989 was produced
before the trial Court during the pendency of the proceedings
and the parties asserted that there is a settlement pursuant to
the partition deed dated 13.12.1993 and based on that, the
appeal is disposed of.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
HC-KAR
22. Defendant No.1 has not questioned the said decree
though it was brought to the notice of defendant No.1 when the
suit seeking registration of the partition agreement was
pending.
23. More importantly, the writ petition filed by
Parvathamma granting occupancy right to the extent of 1/4th
share to all the family members is also dismissed.
24. The partition agreement dated 13.12.1993 records
that Parvathamma has received Rs.20,000/- through Demand
Draft No.002478 dated 11.12.1993 drawn on State Bank of
Mysore, Theerthahalli Branch, that is the Demand Draft is taken
two days prior to the partition agreement dated 13.12.1993.
25. Thereafter, the party to the partition agreement
namely Parvathamma was required to receive Rs.50,000/- as
she agreed to relinquish 1/4th share for Rs.70,000/-. The suit is
filed contending that she is not agreeing to co-operate for
registration of the partition deed by accepting the balance
consideration amount.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
HC-KAR
26. After considering the materials on record, the trial
Court has passed a decree and directed the plaintiff in the said
suit to pay Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8%
per annum from the date of the suit till realization of the said
amount. A direction is also issued to defendant No.1 to receive
Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
27. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend
that the decree passed by this Court in RSA.No.489/1989, is
not binding on Parvathamma on the premise that she was not
present before this Court when the appeal was dismissed and
Advocate has pleaded ignorance about the settlement/partition
deed dated 13.12.1993.
28. What is required to be noticed is after the disposal
of said RSA.No.489/1989, Parvathamma has not questioned the
said Judgment on the premise that she has not consented for
the partition. It is also required to be noticed that no
application is filed to review the said judgment despite the
judgment is brought to the notice of Parvathamma or her legal
representatives in O.S.No.227/1996.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
HC-KAR
29. This being the position, this Court is of the view
that the judgment in RSA 489/1989 and the order passed by
the Land Tribunal binds Parvathamma.
30. In addition to that, it is also required to be noticed
that both Courts have recorded a concurrent finding that
Parvathamma received Rs.20,000/- through demand draft as
stated in the partition deed dated 13.12.1993. If that is the
case, it is one more indication of the fact that Parvathamma
consented for the partition deed dated 13.12.1993.
31. There is yet another angle to this case, it is stated
in the partition deed dated 13.12.1993 that Parvathamma had
1/4th share in the suit property. This is the finding recorded by
the Land Tribunal, where Parvathamma also filed Form No.7
and Hoovappa also filed Form No.7. The Land Tribunal has
taken view that the property is the joint family property and
granted 1/4th share to Parvathamma. Challenging the same,
Parvathamma has filed W.P.No.39229/1992 before this Court.
After disposal of RSA.No.489/1989, Parvathamma did not
pursue the said writ petition. Later, the writ petition was
dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 1999. This again
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
HC-KAR
gives an indication that Parvathamma gave up her claim for
entire property in Sy.No.73. If Parvathamma had an intention
to claim entire property bearing Sy.No.73, she would have
pursued her writ petition.
32. In view of the dismissal of W.P.No.39229/1992, the
order passed by the Land Tribunal granting 1/4th share to
Parvathamma has attained finality.
33. This being the position, this Court does not find any
error in Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which
are confirmed by First Appellate Court.
34. It is also noticed that there is a direction to pay
Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. If
the said amount is not yet deposited, the respondents shall
deposit the said amount as directed by the trial Court with due
notice to the present appellants.
35. If the amount is already deposited and for any
reason if it is kept in interest earning deposit, said amount
along with interest shall be released in favour of the appellants.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37134
HC-KAR
36. It is also made clear that if at all,
plaintiffs/respondents have deposited the amount before the
trial Court, without notice to the plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs/respondents are liable to pay Rs.50,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of suit, till
the date of payment.
For the reasons stated above, appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
SSD, SMJ
