Karnataka High Court
Chowdamma vs Munivenkatappa on 27 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
R.S.A NO.1083 OF 2016(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. CHOWDAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
W/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA
2. SRINIVASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA
BOTH ARE R/AT PERSHWAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADUVATHI POST, VOKKALERI HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK-563101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.THIMMANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
2. M VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
2
BOTH ARE R/AT PERSHWAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADUVATHI POST, VOKKALERI HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK-563101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.STEEVAN RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 R/W ORDER 7 RULE 1
OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD:
28.06.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.252/12 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KOLAR,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFIYING THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD: 19.10.2012 PASSED IN
OS.NO.510/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE, KOLAR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by plaintiffs. The parties have filed a joint compromise petition on 25.8.2022 duly signed by the respective counsel and the parties to the appeal.
2. Both appellants 1 and 2 as well as defendants 1 and 2 are present before this Court. The counsel on record have identified the parties to the 3 proceedings. Since the Office has raised objection in regard to the signature of second appellant, the Aadhar and pan card are verified by this Court to ascertain the very identification of second appellant and the counsel for appellants has also identified the second appellant.
3. This Court has personally verified with plaintiffs and defendants. They have submitted to this Court that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise. The plaintiffs have admitted that they have voluntarily accepted One acre by way of settlement which is referred as Schedule 'B' property, while defendants 1 and 2 also admitted that they have voluntarily accepted 39 guntas which is referred as Schedule 'C' property. Both parties have submitted that their respective counsel have explained the terms of compromise. Having understood the terms of 4 compromise, they have voluntarily signed this compromise petition.
4. On examining the compromise petition, this Court finds that it is a lawful compromise. None of the parties have complained any duress or coersion. Accordingly, the compromise petition is admitted on record.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition.
Office to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-