K Vishwanath vs Aswathalakshmi on 17 December, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K Vishwanath vs Aswathalakshmi on 17 December, 2009

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

 BangaJO're_~"56Qv._Q8S;"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT  _

DATED THIS THE 27"" DAY OF DECE§'€.f3'g.g3:,"-2:(}OA9 " E-V 

BEFORE  f: 

THE HOl\%'B:,E MR.J.GE3fICE"Sx.'ABDUi;"'t'Q§.i§}:4EER_T§ .

REGULAR FIRS'F..APP«E'Ai__'VAf'€'{g.5iE~.9. OF 2Vo'Oi?(mR)

BETWEEN I

1. K.vishwar;a,t't:-, _ 1 . 
S/O latte'-..i<.;5§$wa~tha_na.rayg*:r;i_; .
Aged5abOut"SEE-.yeérﬁS«,_" ..  
R/a No~ﬁ2e9«:A.;.,Ch;:g_:<'afn~za (garden,
S3'hé3"hi<E:3rE;apt..1EfjaVi11._ "  _ 
B_angaIO're.»'>»._56Q  ' -

2. K,Aswathram  *   = Transposed R1 as
S/O fate KAswatﬁen'aray.an;'v_  Appeiiant No.2 by
Aged abo;%t61__. yearé, V  the Permission
[\_é"oV.'3.28, v-f;_"*'~ "c_:--.t'_{i.-<.oAss,  """  :> of the Court
3*'? sv:,am,,  'Ph.a.se;._ ' dated 16.22.2909
Ba r1'a_sh an"i< a %'i~. 3 '*7. Sta ge,

...APPELLANTS

 Sr; B.R:§'C'--rag--ox}vtié', Ativocate}

'~ .  O,   $"w_a:f'hhai'a'%<:shmi

--.TW./ot Mﬁrahalad,
Agu€'C§"'a'b'{)t,!t 59 yearg,

  No.85, LakS§1ma:2a Thota,
 V[\iext to Siiicoyz English School,



Near Soudamlm Choultry,
Konanakunte, Bangalore.

2. Ksaraswathl, W/o NagabhLJSha.o.,,
Aged about 55 years, ' '
No.14, 3" Cross,

Link Road, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore M 560 003. V . 

Aged about 57 years, _ ' _
Door No.2875, 8"'l"--€ross,  j.
'Punyakolti Nilaya'   '
Kumaraswa-my L,ay'ou--t.,.f

3. K.Sharadhamma,, W/o D_,.GxopaI"a.i,ah, A Q'

Bangalqref.'

.4. K. La\}ai<:;:rﬁ.aV'r, 'S/ojullafte  .'Asm}§at'haoa raya rl,

A,i}e.d ,abouf"1:3lQs.vea rs; 'V
£40,209; £'p,|.,osta,iVrs,,ChlE<l<_anna Ga rd en,
Svlilankara ':3'-a,ra,rr},,   '

Bangalore'    

5 . _ K . K u  I'n.a'r, 
.;,:s/o~ late K';Asl{g(_a:,.%':a:1al'ayan,
 'Aged about 50 years,

 'V No.'2U9_,"*LJ_pstairs, Chikkanna Garcéen,

 V';§hfa.r1l<aravp'u ram,
7-.,'Bang"al_olrj:e' -- 560 004. _..REESPONDENTS

 S';*vR,Hegde Hucilamane, Advocate R1.

 R2 " and R3 deleted  ~

 'vf.Q.FT,R4 & RS)

_ & Srl G12. Shanl;/mukha, Aovocate
vO--O»Dw

This RFA filed under sectéon 96 r/w order 41 Rule 1
of CPC against the judgment and decree in



os.:\io.1502e/2309 dated 01.02.2007 ;;ass¢;ci'*iia;;:__:%3f¥'*;.,t:~i;try
Civil Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the suit f'.3.V"D§i'!',t.lt'i0'l'l--. 

This RFA coming on for .0rde.r.s 
delivered the followingr 1 " 1 ' 

This appeal is. directe--d:a~gai~nst htheiviisidiigrnent and
decree in  on the file
of ><><VIII""vCity.'CiviifjidGreet':Barndaloigevfa'The 1" appellant
was the    apailtne 2"" appellant was

the v1V?'i...reseion;ci~e;:i1.t.   oth--eryrespondents are the other

,I'_,,_ £'rié1'..c0:;r:' j defenda'--nts.infhe:'said-.slj--it; The said suit was filee by the» plaintifffor ,;3art.it4i0n" separate possession of the suit sC«E{ede~le propeVU_?_$.-» The Court below dismissed the said 0 jsukit «3isgals:0"~~the cohnected suit OtS.N0.2816/1997 filed by "~.t'h.e' a'p';§_e.¥.laija€is herein. Respoetlents 3 8;. 4- have been de'leteda as no relief has been clairned against them in this "»x"appeal

2. Learned Counsel aepearing for the parties submits that the matter has been ainicably settled between the it parties. They have filed an application Rule 3 mm Section 151 of CPC report~ih.gA4_:':'thVe~l.::te.;n1s' settlement which are as under:i;

" The appellants--.,§'i'z_.p, i;{.\/__is'hvA\ia_ha'tli'""and K.Aswathararn _ andp.___iu':-.res;3_orndlezetsppp Vpvvhamely Sent./Aswatha L;a.l"<~shn<ifi (iresp.o'nId"eh_t ¥\lo.2),K.La\/a Kumar (respondlentl _«73.evt§.AA.'.ji4,li.'_l_<.usha Kumar (responr_i:en_t' state as .,:'}o.s'ié$io,:i'5o'2o l/§tf.,,»r';999 is filed by partition and separate poissleissionwof su'i-trsicheduie property, viz', old .,No.&43R6,,_:Vnev\}v" measuring East to West 40 f_e:e*:,__and""£\lo«--rth' to south 73 3/2. feet: bounded by V _Veast.t,VAlV\J'ahjappa's house, West:Yagnava§i<a Hostel, .Aswathan's house and Soutixﬁovernmeht Road, situated at Chikkahna it ..t3'arderi, Shankara Puram, Bahgaloi*e~56O 804, '_ claiming 1,/'7""' share eaeh. That suit is dismissed. Against the Judgment 8: decree, the plaintiff has filed the appeal in RFA nO.6-49 OF 2807. K" ,

(ii) Sri K.Aswatharam and Sr:

appellants have filed the suit O.S.i\io;.28'_1~.6l' l 1997 against (1) Sri. Lava:"r<'t.m3Aar,'_' 'S".ri4.Kti=s'_i'.0.a if Kuma r, (3)COfT!lTllSSlOi'l€i', 'Ba F-fg a.l-are».iVi'a n'a{ja.Arai.a_' Palike and (4) Smt.Aswathal"a.l<'s*hmi,tVft}~§V.;;iaftiti';0nVl of suit schedule pro§3e,ff~.y clair*m'ngt.t:i:/4*: share each as per the Will VAexeﬁti.tedd'_by {*n0the.r'§ of the plaintiffs and Vf't9_.r.:"deelar2.atVi.di't:~ntjt._to change the Khatia of the sLiitV:l's»ehe__dti¥le--';3.i;d'i5..eVrt'y i.e., h0%..3S€ propet.t»y@:'b'Vtaariizig at 3"" cross, Ch i3l<«i<a"n_n a'rd:e.n", ha nfl;_<a rap U ram , Ba ng al 0 re- sso»..Qd~<iV;.,:,nte.;i_stnfi'ng- itfastiiito West 40 feet and i\lottl'i'-to S'nOi.ith<"i?_3 '/2. feet and counter Claim, defendant entitled to 1/7""

shazjel as decreed. The suit filed by the p.laintiff.,i_:s"'dismissed. Against that Judgment 8:

A ;,,A>eC"ree, tliewaipeellants have filed the appeal in _ "RQF'A_"'¥\lla.'429 OF 2009.

..{ii'i).§adtn the eeit \/i:»:., O.Stl'io.2816 of 3,997 and " .,{;i1;s.ito.1so2o of 3,999 are clubbed and Common Judgement was passed on 01.02.2007, dismissing the suit O.S.£\lo,2816 of 1997 and O.S.£\l0.15020 of 3.999 and allowing cross obgection filed by the 4"' defendant .l 'at i Smt.Aswathalal<.sl"inii declaring that;~~-s.?}e.__'__'".i';r.., entitled to E/7"" share as per the Wi'l«'l,_" M the Judgement & Decree_,R.FA V and RI'-"A %\Jo.429 of 2009,14arei,f?le'd_beforeV:'ts.h'is:;_' Hon'ble Court.

(iv) In RFA No.6»49 Ao.§."}:»oo't?.,_.}'rviémdis filed for deleting rE3SVl:)(.)..%Vf}'d'€%F"?V'tSit.l'l\J'O,'3iT'~i§ti1d 4, viz., Smt.l<.saraswathi'7and'_VVlS'Vi'i1:«,._§?§'.'§'tiahadarnma, as they _soldi nneasuring East to _iiv§.5': i__fe_et..._ou.t éoillréet, and North to soutlﬁ feet«..Vo'u't.. 7/2 feet and hence 4 inHl§FA l\lo.649 of 2007 are :"Kde!.eted.V (ex/) §h'*R_VFA" N{:,429 of 2009, Memo is filed to idvele'te respolndent No.3 Bangalore Mahanagara A In View of the compromise arrived by the VV.lV3ar_'t~i..e's::'decree and counter claim in O,S.No.28:€> .:j_:{f' 399? dated O:M32.2007 does not survive in " favour of the -41" defendant viz., Smt.Aswathala£<shrni.

(vi) The suit schedule property has come-to the share of the appellants and the respondents ll father Sri.K.\/Ashwathanarayan by settrlesh_eh__tt-4'i';r'1:"

the partition dated 12.52.1945. Fu'.rt'her-athat»V_v_" A' there was partition bety\:.ee_r1 A;s"vyath'_a.:1""rand Aswathaharayaru on schedule property has Corhetrto hsjhare father of the appev1,§'yfa"nyts artd' Sri K.v.Aswathanaraya_r1_VV':hvat§'~Vr}o ri.'gttt,,to_efxeCute the Wilt and t'hA,--.e"':f3arz'-rte ;§S,t'"C'h_a»%.f'e'nyged in the suit and prayed that a-ttf'V_thee';;3Vers.ohe;'V'~yxjifél be entitled for 1/7t7:A'Si*"--1_are;:"VV' here that the respc§':dyeafs--;'_ 3* ]r3Ij1ci* ,4 r.-aaitfnéhrétmt.rrcsaraswathj and: .ySr"o_tV.{_K.§ha_ra*'t1'ah§I'ha xhatve sold, out of the

-portion meastr ring East to V"wés_t 3.7.5."teveteryyetee'North to South 35 feet by mea_4n"s_oVf _$4§r:.€»'.rj;'eed. The appettahts nameiy Sri Kﬂshywvatltweram and Sri K.\/ishwanath have i,f'i%ee'*.the eu:"t"'i'h o,s.No.1so8e of 21004 on the me Ci\/H Judge, Mayo Hati, Bangalore, "Ctf2§'%y:!.er:;o'i'vhg the sate deed E3><EéC{ét€d by their rsiét-ears namety Smt.Saraswathi and "s?ht.sharadamma on the basis of the Wit? as their father has no right to execute the Wm as it A 'is an arrcestra! property. AH these partiee agrees that the suit schedtrfe property is the joint famity property and each has equal property.

(vii) To end the litigation a,iho;ng..s't the "ap'peVil}:intsi1.h_' and respondents, thVe'y.4_have".come to"'V':etVt4lementVl at the advise of the eldiersas fo|io.?vs~.:,

(viii) The appelllviarits-_gn.jam'ei!¥,V.,,'gkiviswanatii and K.ASwathVaram name Smt.K.,r'i's.iiV§,;ha,i_ai<§hrni,«.,xSvri_i-.icﬂtigaxra Kumar and Sri s.evtt~ledV_'thVe» matter as follows:

""" H '-fa)", portion of the site covered H deed executed by " Siri'i:,l'{;.iS_ar.a".swati1i and "S.,rriVt,'KSlharadamma i,e., 17.5 feet x 35 feetvaslshown in the Sketch, the remaining _ ""iv:p'e.rsons namely (1) Sri §<.Ashwatharam, 'A*,;{:l)sri §<.\/ishwanath, (3) SH iaieva Kumar, {4} Sri K.l<usha Kiimar and (5) Smt. i<.Ashwatha Lakshmi, are entitled to 1/5"" share in the remaining site. These five persons will have 1/5"" share in the remaining eortion of the schedule property and the Sketeh is also enclosed and the l above persons have right to property.

(b) The above said that it is not:possib_le1".to partiti'ovn'~ in;

beneficial mall":-nVer..,_ S"o.__ ally'Vt.he'f"p'a'r't'i:es agreed to sell tl'ie:"p.rop.erty t'o«-any other 3"'; person Ol;f€l":S:vA'l'i~l.ghvéSt' price. Out of the sale pifoceiedllsj :all'--fof"'t_he above 5 pers.ons:'to""ge;t .tlwej.arn-ot;cn't equally. All V3-_tne1s'e._.persoins co. o_--pera:te';with each other _ *:";_o}_se.|"i" "for the best price All persons jointly Ve.><ec'utel'~the._s.ale deed in favour of the bl ppricha'5_e'r'w.__".."'In case, it is not possible to 'se_l_l"'theV'property within six months, the ._'same'Wmay be published in news paper to '°g:at;I..ctioi1 the property through process of vA'Cvourt. Decree may be passed in terms of this compromise.

WHEREFORE, it is prayed to pass the decree as per the terms of the compromise narrated in para 8 (a) and (b) in the ends ofjustice and eqigity."

ll _10_

3. The appeilants, respondent N02, 5 8zj't3~w:'iiii.ho,A4are parties to the aforesaid compromise are presienvt.tiei.Fola'e_"'th"e4_ Court and are identified by their~~learne'_d It ; evident from the joint application as also their §ea.ri*i'ed Ad"\io.<__:ateVsV V-ha'v;e"'s'ighed the same. Having heard. the lea-med. copnsel"'ap.pe.a°ring for the parties Tam satisfied 'lthati__t}+ie: c'ossrri.pvromise entered into between theépartiesisi'§aw§i,I§.; ar:d.r'easonable. Consediientiwsglrie"appeal is disposed of in terms ofithe atoi'esa'id' application. The Judgment & decree Airnpuigéhed herein accordingly modified. Qraw the decree ' as a F6 ofcoslzs.

3W@ Rsk/M

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court