K.C. Vijayakumar vs A. Srinivasa Rao Since Dead By His Lrs on 25 July, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K.C. Vijayakumar vs A. Srinivasa Rao Since Dead By His Lrs on 25 July, 2011

Bench: Jawad Rahim

' «L:

I

IN THE HIGH CCDURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

BETWEEN:

  SE1' """ '"R.NARAYAE;A,.
'A V§..?g.{;'i3ADRINATiML A:;>v,,}

1

2. 4
ms/G' A.E.R;:N1*JAsA"_R;vAo,

DATED THIS THE 25% DAY OF 3ULY 2011

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MFLJUSTICE 3;s.wA:> R;i4::+:1rv:j;{  H

C.R.P. NO. 42/2E0:1"ANg

, K,C¢VIJAYAKUMAF?.,V 

s/0 LATE CHANDRAPP1-KL 
AGED ABOUT68 YEARS';  _
RESIDING AT"N§3.6E32,;."V  
10" 'A' MAIN RO.A'D.V--.7'    
43"" BQLCK, JA.'r5.A.{\£A.GA.R,aL E " 
BANc_3AE<3.RE 1- S6Q'V.Oi..1"~.."_:.._V' ' 

    A

AGEL; _ABct§)'U"r_ﬁ §3»5ﬁ*EARs,
ms. ,N'::z.'3z3,' E 7 "'5i\«'?';f\II"».'-- "ROAD,

 BSK 1:1  "1':p<r1AsE§,

   

EEANGALQQRE «.5130 085
    PETITIONER

CQMMGN EN AEL CASES

£'«.DV,., AND SR:

A §"E1;az=§\:A<3}:E RAG;

 §£E\ECE_§EA§ E? HES ms

 $,s\§EEE.E,a},

" Egg LATE A,§E:E:vEE,E RAQ;

.'..,»»w,M\

SENCE SEAS BY' HES L95

msc. CVL.12310/'11.,&    



1.

3) NTANAND, S/O LATE $.l\£AGARA3, MAJOR

1.b) NSUNDAR, S/O LATE SNAGARA3, MAJOR

1.c) ARAVIND, S/O LATE STNAGARA], MAJQR '

1.d)\!ASUDHA, S/O LATE SNAGARA3, MAEQR

2. S.\fENKO}1R;'--\O, S/O LATE A.sREmTvA_sA 'RA.Q,V"p"T;:A.3oR, "'

3. s.:~mRAHAR1RAo, ~ S/G LATEA,'SREE'N'I»'T/.§XAS/EA' RAG, M1§ 3'OR

4. sMT,s:l..RA2§s$z\;_A'T+}TI}3.AI, 5/oiLATEwVA.s%REEix£1vAsA-- RAG', '.".'.*T'f'.~3E)"e2../M 1' * 55 ':sMT;MA%:a:;uLfA,,T"'~v_:"*~_. T 5 E;-/O «LA':'E AV. s~2EE__T':»x1p;sA mo, MMQR, "

5, T, "STAT: NA'Ri.V§%!XDA,:

$,!G«LzA"¥'E A'.'$?:EEhsTvASA mo, MAEGR T. « i>/'<:;...;;:;;T'E A.§§;IFaEI'..fA$A RAG_,fv"§§3QR;

8." §T~é":*,'§T»§Q§A,, " 392113 E_A"§E SR£§\§I'v'ASﬁa RAG, MAEGR Q §§vé';TEv:;£TL§;T;2~{§,.

B/'Q LATE ASRENEVQSA Rﬁxﬂg Fv'Eﬁ;.§QR :5":

§£ 'M *3 3 ALL ARE RESEDING AT N028, VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, KORAMIANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 034

10. SMT.GANGAMMA, vv/O VIJAYAKUMAR, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.682, 10" 'A' MAIN ROAD, 47" BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 on > 9;EsEO:\:=OErs2Ts ___ "-.._C'QMMOé"€. IN ALL CASES THIS CRP FILED" ONOER SETIOﬂ._ 115 OF CPC, FILED AGAINST THE JuOGME.As"r_AO--.ATEts G-J,E'TQ'9:2O1O PASSED ON TA 10 IN O.s.NO.1357/2-OO;2O','ON' 'F_.HE.F1LE OF ><><v-AOO;.,.

CITY CIVIL JtJDGE,V.~B'AN:5ALQ'RE, 'v_R'E'JT.EcTIN<3 THE LA No.10 FILE{),U;'Q'_'?, R2511; OF c:P<:..j_~..__ jTH1S"~.fP{EISC:.CVL»._'NO.12310/2011 FILED UNDER SECTION. 5 'OE__*TH'E._*L1MI~"TATIOA: ACT PRAYING TO COND('~:NE-- "mE"~a:3~ELA§("'»».FOR 16 OAYS AND MISC.CVL i\£O.3921'/2.311"'EI£;ED, ";JNDER SECTION 151 OF cm:

PRAY_1NG TO' S'FAY'*. "THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF O§3_%.,13A57/2O<:2.,VAOT\\T THEE FELE OF THE ><><v ADDITEQNAL Cm' T;-:.vrz,JODGETEEANGALORE. _"E"§%.§§,;O?'E:.t_%%EOsT and Mis<:'CvE"s csmiszg 9:": far Oéders Ems '{§_;=313}",x:§f:E_<;O%LsATi:"_jmade the faéigwing QQEBER "Re:»Oe2:§§§On maﬁa? $EC€§G%'E 11$, CR5 $3 agaérsgi ihe v.»::_s»zfj<j:'¢:r gassed an §.A.1G in 0.3.135?/G2 On the fiie Of iudgeg //H I _ , '=._§;= /7%-"E 5:

O-' 3 A.SrinEvasa Racrfather 0f the 2*" petitiener to seli haif share in the properties in question for Rs.75,8QQ/t---,:"Ihe suit was Enitiaiiy contested, but the parties and a compromise decree was passed which A.Sriniva5a Raomiaintiff rri,thee§;§rt"'--1aé;:amé'w~é:n:at:g;i ta haéf share which the father dfV"t_h'é 2"" acquired under the partition. v"ir2_V'v:terms def-tvfjeﬁcoréapromise, the suit was decreed.""V«.for.'_VAspecfafég»Iiﬁerfermance of the agreement dated bi;;t,---ﬁherei,V--'.:'§as no refief for Sesséession. é

4. JW.e.ﬁU§?'~2~Hiié¥':'i3?;1E'¥ 'DVét'§t'éenei"§hereEn had ﬂied a suit in O.S.602/87 §,ha:'e:er:g:5g'i'j'V-»dthe ""-.tié'c;~ee in 0.8.3864/85 contending that t'f:e_}u,dd'rne:".t"arid decree in 0.S.3864f8S wagegzot bvE..n§;fi'r}g' an E;-'§'i:t"T'IVpg4..-..--®.*VSA6Q2//8? after contest was decﬁaed heidérsg that the judgment and Ijdieeree 19.4,§:98E';s is net binding are VVE,?'Ef.:_e 25" pet.§u:ér:r%'eér,"ftéereafterf the 2"" eetitéerzer said hie g§s.:a're:Et: At§':e4_.t=:as'eV;eer*t§ te tee ﬁt eetétéemeg' eereén. 6

5. Thereafter, the L.Rs. of A.SrEnE\/asa Rao~piaintiff in 0.8.3864/85 filed 0.8.1357/O2 on the fiie of City-.[C§viE Eudge, Bangatore, seeking a decree fer deEivet%;»f._t'.:»!'.:i.:eeeV'r'*:?.tA possession of the eroperty in question eifu V' the compromise decree in the deed of safe was executed in fe.vt>t:_r of A',.$r'fné2'as'e 'Rat)'--, in E><n.P.809/86. Petitiorters"'veeti'tered Caetest; aviidwwtesisted V the suit daim on 'end decree in OtSt3864/85 was nettbitydtité' 2"" petitioner or the 13*' petit%'et}:g;.; '.ttx.e_l__;:;:froV'V;)erty) in terms of the decree' contended that the quesi,.;ier'td:f djeiegeryht-eteessession of the prepetty in favxetﬁ t'31..e_."t1;Ai*~'\>s:';*~.:§f"«',&'.Stinivasa Rae does net: arise.

They..reiied"o.téA S'evt:tit)"r1 of the Seeciﬁc: Reiief Act and aise 'eh p"r:;y;s:o}f5f Order it Rtsie 2, Kip}-Qt The 2"

'VV;:s_et§tie.h-e%t"eV¥Vst,{.ifiied an aeeéicatioe under Greet VS Rate 13., C;..?J'C,_.te--tes3eCt the eéaént. '-K"

fee tréaé eeert by the imetzgeee Qfﬂef" eeted ""--:3;'»§§}:2@1U, has tejectee the eeetéeetéen, Aggréeved, by ﬁt, petitioners ate in this revésietz. *4 A w "E Q' SK} 8 /1\.SrEnivasa Rae pertaining te his hair share. The suit filed by the 2"' petitioner in 0.8.602/87 is to seek a decieration that the compromise decree in O.S.3864/E35---.e;e'f3".j':jiVgtg binding on him on the pfea he had 1/4*" shVa,r:e;...vTiherefereih setting aside the judgment and decree the judgment in 0.5.502/8.7% dated"'i=S.4,2i}'DQ.:'C{3uid."rieVt'~~tV disturb the decree passed ée'V"i'feizgur of"A.'Si'§Vz1Ev.e;$aV Rae in respect of the remaEeiih'gg_po:'tie'Vr$VA propevrtyfy

9. Piaintiffs in 0.3.1357/'t;2'r're§s:pu,r.;d,éi§its herein) have seught to 'Z-aside I and decree in O.S.6vO'2/Sifiﬁen t:h1~e"gro;;"ed that" is affecting their rights. They:'Vais'et'_ averre"d«.%Vtihetrr--.i'riV...view of execution of the saée deed initEtzrn;vP,t3Q9/8€&';~.-iithe scheduie property has been cdghE»*e3§:ed.,t_te th'eia*-----fe"therwA.Srinixresa Rae in terms ef the .v§e'dgggn':e_ht:V'e%§d---.decree in 05.3864/85 and therefere, they .'ere'i«enti.t.iVe{Edie ehyeicei pessessiee ef the ereeerty, We eerrtereéeri ef the peetéeeere that the eieérz: in Q.S§:35"?,'82 A iiei"i'§'e%2ie te ee rejected eeeeeee it is hit by Qrder 2:: Eerie V§2,rCP.C. ée certainty eeaeceptaeiet This re eeceuse the 1 Riv/,....

_: =1 ', ,3' ,\/ 9 present suit is for deiévery of edssessien of the property in terms of the decree in 0.8.3864/85 which hes____been disturbed by the decree in 0.55.602/87. Questie.ij's.:ieffasgv and fact arise for consideratien. Written stateﬁzenit"ﬂied the petitioners in the said suit hes._givea"i"tEs'ee.TjjLc:"'severeVE V' issues triabie by the court in thé:.«sL:'E"tt.t~ B'e~sE_'c'ie:s, statements are found in thed_p'i'e,§nt dAiseIosi_n§;..V§e{_stsV;3r,;:§rt off' the reéief sought which req_u.iEe.__tt*ieE. ."£'}':.e,:fefe7ref I am tmabie to accept ._t'nat the suit in cxs.1357/021$ he by oreéyttfeﬁé 2 tiex; orthatthe suit is ¥iat}E.e§'-ﬁre uedierdoitdder II Rule 2, C.P.C. The Ee'arri'e'cis»t5riVa¥ assigned reasons in support of the order ;3ass'eVd';'vA:_fi.fihd:h0Vmfirméty in the same. }.€3,._§' the ":e.seVlt, E: find no merit in the petition. E': is 'eeeord»"Eeg§.§{"«--._Vdismissed; Consequeetly, Misc, Caxée 3§2Ef11 for eehdeneiiet': <3? deﬁes! and std'? resﬁeetiveéy eye rejeeieéa §§§§§ Mdu ,§gh*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court