Karnataka High Court
Shivanandappa vs Basanagouda on 4 October, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
R.S.A.NO.435/2003 (DEC.)
BETWEEN:
SHIVANANDAPPA
MAJOR, S/O CHANNABASAPPA UKKUND
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ARALIKATTI
TQ: HIREKERUR DT: HAVERI. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.P.G.MOGALI, ADV)
AND:
1. BASANAGOUDA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR
SMT THIRUKAVVA
W/O.LATE BASANAGOUDA BANNIHATTI
MAJOR, R/O ARALIKATTI
TQ: HIREKERUR, DT: HAVERI
AMENDED AS PER ORDER DT.1.6.2005.
2. SMT.IRAVVA
W/O SOMAPPA GORAVAR
MAJOR, R/O ARALIKATTI
TQ: HIREKERUR, DT: HAVERI
3. SMT BASAVVA
W/O BASAVARAJAPPA ANVERI
MAJOR, R/O G ANVERI
TQ: RANEBENNUR DT: HAVERI
2
4. FAKEERAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA BANNIHATTI
MAJOR, R/O ARALIKATTI
TQ: HIREKERUR DT: HAVERI
5. SMT PARWATAVVA
W/O MAHADEVAPPA GIRIMALLAPPANAVAR
MAJOR, R/O TAWARAGI
TQ: HIREKERUR DT: HAVERI. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.AVINASH BANAKAR FOR
SRI.F.V.PATIL, ADV)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.2.2003 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.45/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.), RANEBENNUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.7.99 PASSED
IN O.S.NO.4/86 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.),
HIREKERUR.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04/02/2003 passed in R.A.No.45/1999 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Ranebennur, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hirekerur, dated 06.07.1999 in 3 O.S.No.4/1986 for considering the following substantial questions of law:
i) Whether both the courts below are right in holding that Article 65 and 109 of the Limitation Act is applicable as the suit is neither based on title nor the sale deed is sought to be set aside in the suit?
ii) Whether the courts below are justified in law in decreeing the suit without giving sufficient opportunity to lead evidence to the appellant?
iii) Whether both the courts below have erred in not applying the principle of estoppel as the suit property was sold for family necessity and also for the fact that respondent No.1 though was major as on the date of sale, kept quiet without challenging the sale deed?
iv) Whether both the courts below are justified in law in rejecting IA-V filed by the appellant, for production of a document?4
v) Whether the courts below are right in decreeing the suit, without considering the point regarding non-joinder of necessary parties as the mother and aunt of the respondents were not impleaded?
vi) In view of the facts and circumstances established in the case, whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, affirmed by the lower appellate court is justified in law?
2. When this matter had come up before this Court on 07.09.2012, both the counsel submitted that they will explore the possibility of amicable settlement and the matter was adjourned. Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the parties have filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC reporting the settlement arrived at between the parties. The said compromise petition is duly signed by the appellant and the respondents and also by the respective learned counsel. Therefore, they submit that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition in the interest of justice and equity. 5
3. The submission of the learned counsel for both the parties is placed on record. The appellant and the respondents are present before the court. Their presence is recorded. The compromise petition dated 04.10.2012 reads thus:
" The appellant and respondents respectfully submit the following compromise petition as per the terms mentioned below;
1) It is submitted that the appellant has filed top noted Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree in R.A.No.45/2003 dated
04.02.2003 passed by the court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Ranebennur confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4/1986 dated 06.07.1999 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hirekerur.
2. It is submitted that the well wishers of appellant and respondents suggested for compromise of long pending dispute. After the 6 discussion the parties have agreed to settle the matter by way of compromise and the terms of the compromise are as under:
a) The appellant herein has agreed to relinquish 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.1/34/1/1+2 situated at Aralikatti village in Hirekerur taluk, District Haveri and the same has been described in the below mentioned schedule.
b) It is submitted that the appellant has agreed to hand over the possession of the schedule property of this compromise petition to the respondents and respondents also agreed that they will not claim any rights whatsoever against the appellant in respect of remaining portion of suit schedule property.
c) The respondents will have a right to enter their names in the concerned revenue records and the appellant is not having any objection for the same.7
3. Wherefore the parties of this compromise petition pray that this Hon'ble Court may be dispose off the above said appeal in terms of this compromise petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE The land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas out of 3 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.1/34/1/1+2 situated at Aralikatti village in Hirekerur taluk, District Haveri. East: The remaining land of respondents in Sy.No.1/34/1/1+2 West: The land of the appellant in Sy.No.1/34/1/1+2 North:The land of Shekappa Ukkund South:The land of Subash Ukkund."
4. The instant appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
Parties to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. The efforts made by the counsel appearing for the parties in settling the matter is placed on record.
SD/-
JUDGE Jm/-