Karnataka High Court
Smt Lokamani vs Smt Mahadevamma on 22 September, 2022
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.58/2014 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT LOKAMANI
W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
2. SRI M MAHESHA
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
3. SRI M GIRISHA
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/A
DANDIKERE VILLAGE
VARUNA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK-570 010.
4. SMT NAGARATHNA
D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
W/O LOKESH S
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/A NO.5/105, HULLIKERE STREET
KOLLEGA TOWN-571 440
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADV.)
2
AND:
1. SMT MAHADEVAMMA
W/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/A CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE
VARUNA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK-570 010.
2. SMT PREMA
W/O DEVANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/A DANDIKERE VILLAGE
VAJAMANGALA POST
VARUNA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK-570 010.
3. SMT RATHNAMMA
W/O MAHADEVASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A KALMALLI VILLAGE
NANJANAGUD TALUK-571 301.
4. SRI P MAHADEVU
S/O LATE PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/A BUGATHAGALLI VILLAGE
VARUNA HOBLI
MYSO RE TALUK-570 010.
5. SMT MAHADEVAMMA
W/O MADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A BUGATHAGALLI VILLAGE
VARUNA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK-570 010.
6. SRI KASHIYAPPA
S/O KASHIYAPPANA CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/A BUGATHAGALLI VILLAGE
VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK-570010.
3
7. SRI BERULAL PITHLIYA
S/O P ARAS CHAND
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A NO.13/119, ASHOKA ROAD
LASHKAR MOHALLA
MYSO RE-570001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. NIKHIL S.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4 TO R6 HELD SUFFICIENT, R7 SERVED)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 96 R/W
ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 22.06.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.33/2009 ON THE
FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE,
DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION AND FOR DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, C M
JOSHI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The counsels for both the sides, appellant Nos. 1 to 4 and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are present before the Court and they have filed a Joint Memo of Compromise Petition under order 23 Rule 3 CPC reporting the amicable settlement of the dispute.
2. By way of settlement, the suit schedule properties have been partitioned amicably and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have also been provided share in the properties. 4
3. In para No.7 of the Compromise Petition, they have stated that "respondent No.4 to 7 are the purchasers, who have been placed exparte before the Trial Court and they had remained absent in this appeal and in view of the compromise, claim against respondent Nos. 4 to 7 is given up".
4. We have perused the Compromise Petition and each of the parties who are present before the Court admit the contents of the Compromise Petition and acknowledge that they have affixed signatures after knowing the contents of the same. By this compromise, the appellants have given 01 acre 21 guntas of land to the respondents as stated in para -4 of the compromise petition.
5. In view of the categorical admission of the contents of the joint memo/compromise petition by the appellant Nos. 1 to 4, respondent Nos. 1 to 3, we are convinced that the matter is settled amicably and therefore, the compromise is taken on record.
5
6. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the Compromise Petition.
Final decree be drawn as per the Compromise Petition. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, pending IA does not survive for consideration and therefore, disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE tsn*