Sri T H Hanumanthu vs Smt H Jayamma on 23 June, 2010

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri T H Hanumanthu vs Smt H Jayamma on 23 June, 2010

Bench: Aravind Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23*") DAY OF JUNE 20

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE   

WRIT PETITION NO.11687"OF"2«0 17.0  

BETWEEN :

SRE. TH. HANUMAN'I'HU".-, "
S/O LATE 1w1AN'UMANNA.____"'-
AGED ABOUT 66 
NO. 1041/C, 4?" 'a1.,;3_c1i; _ V
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD  <
RAJAJINAGAR   _  I _ 
BA1\EGAl,O§§}§.~ 5600301 -. ' '

SR1". "1Iri~..f'1v_1'm§f'iz HAN' LéfvI.A1zA..i?-i§" V

is /0 'L/-XTE ':v-§.»g.x1~¢U:wA:'~1.NA;
AGE") ABQUj'~ ,64..j{si;.A1-es.

_ _SR1.O "I---2. vJA\{Asr::AN~;{AI<.
 5/0 I.A*i'z§HAN1-IMANNA_
 £2.13 A[30'U'}'----{30 YEARS.

  _ "£>fsi'i'é,*m§jN13Rs 2 AN1") 3 ARE

. "E7?.E;SEDI'NVG AT TALAGHA"I'1'API'5RA

VILi;i--_';G'E, UTI'ARAHALLI HOBLI
E3AN,GAl.ORIB SOUTH TALUK
 . . PIETITIONERS

O " .=_.4{E3},-'VV'E'>ri. DR. Ravishzmkal'. Acix.-2. for

M/S. Lex Na:-xus, Adv5s.,)



 {sf , 'V

AND:

z-.3

SMT. H. JAYAMMA.

W/O MUNIGANGAIAWA.

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
R/AT NO.80, 2"" CROSS,
SARASVVATHIPURA. ULSOOR.
BANGALORE 560 008.

SMT. I-"I. ASVVATHAMMA.

W7 O RAMACHANDRA,

AGE} ABOUT 54 YEARS7 

R/AT N018, 1-ST SAK SA!-:1' F53 ST1§EE'1"; 
2m» CROSS, OPP. TO H.R.H..A. svc_HOO1_.,O "

J.C. ROAD, . 
BANGALORE 560.__0"O6. 

SMT. H. sARAswAf::iI:E.VV _ 'V -
w/ O H . L, _Kf?..__ISZ~lNEG O~WDA.j; -- . V_
AGED AI3OEETi" 52:=YE;/ms.  _
R/A 1_\.:fO;~.y1 ,'l.Ar55.;zxa§:sjY;A LAY-Ou'1i.
[PAPAPANDU s1:,RIA1'j,; ROAD)  
C,1A:1:2<:KA,1,AsA:N.ORA, ' " 

E.AN'GA1,OVi%iE3-~ ' '

SM? H; 1,I§1'~:LA*MBA';.'AV

AW/O KA_MA1-.ANA_B1AAiA,

, AGEI.) ABOIJT 50, YEARS.

" R1/A No.21, N"EAR AYYAPPA 'I.'EMPLE.

3?"? CROSS, AZAD NAGAR.

3  A..FL}"x1\V_I(3./>i};,_O"_ifii+3 550 018.

  SMT.' 5  S1-~1ARA1)AMM_A.
 SINCE" l'.).I.<3CEASE1)

By*::«£1~:R LRS.

'"~_.s%.\/ET. BHARAT}--IE @ ANUSUYA,
 D/O LATE H. SHARADAMMA.

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
R/A I\§O.4/ I. 27*" CROSS.



A'  SA;\%(3A1,ORi«: 560 005.

PAMMFZGOWIDA ROAD. J.C. NAGAR.
BANGALORE 560006.

6 SMT. BANUMATHI.

D / O LATE H. SI"-IARADAMMA.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

R/A NO. '13, ANKAPPA BLOCK,
J.C. NAGAR.   "
BANGALORE 560 006.

7 K. SRINIVAS,  
S /O LATE H. SHAi2A1)A_A/1Vi\2iA.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,  ' _
R/AT4/1. 2ND CROSS,  _ 
PAMMEGOWDA 'ROAD, J .c , NAGAI2.,
BANGALORE 560 006' '  ' .. 

8 MAHESH.    . 
S /O LATE' ';:iV,'i1'SHARA;I>;riM 'MA.  A 
AGED.--ABOi:JT--.'.32 YEARS.) A
R/AT 4/ 3-f'.:=2%*iD'  

p"AiMM't«:<;'"OW;),A 1*2.._OA:>  NAOAR.
r5ANGAi;,O_R.E':560'4006. ' .

9 ANUPAMA._ * f' _  
D /O ALATI3 E41, S'Hr'J§A;I)AM MA,
V _AOE1)"A13Om' 30. YEARS,
, R/AT 4/ 1 ; v.2f\"3' CROSS.
'i~_PAMim«:OOw1)zri' ROAD. J.C. NAGAR,

. . . RESPOND ENTS

 (By   Vasariih. Adv. for R2 to R6 and R9.
 Sn" D. Jayaramaiah. Adv. for R1,? and 8)

 Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and

 "'."22_7 bf the Constitution of India praying to  aside the
_  (9-:rd'e'1*S passed 01}. 23.2.2010 on the file of the Ii
 A A§:iditi()11ai Civil Judge {Sr.Dn.) Bangalore Rum} I)iSi'.ri(:i:,
~ '"Ba.r1gge1.I()re and Vida A.nnex~«E in O.S.NO.366/2006.



This pei:iii()1'i Comirig on for OrderS this day. the
Court made the foilowingz

ORDER

This writ petition is directed againSI§l_:l..lih€'fj*0fC3'f§i"_ dated 23.02.2010 passed in 0.s.>i§;;;.36e-/zeieeijfgz i.he_:ii= Additional Civil Judge [S1'.i;3.i1.}i§_"A.i3ail11g2il0'1'el'l:"'Rii'r:;il District, Bangalore. \Vi*ie_fei0.:indei'- V i;h_e'_ cus§1n.pr9mise..l' petitioii ﬁled by thepartiegg...iii'1.dei<_.nOrde1---.2A3_l§{'u1e 3 of Code of em] Priictedulielhaéi ilghfein ;.:;e;i.ea.

2. The in ;iiuilsi'ie.li' are' ' fegellbws:

' -l herein filed. a suit.

O.S.i\l0.36_E§l;'2(lOEll0.11' I'll'-'\fll"ilC', of the Principal Civil Judge [Si':lD1'1_:3. B21ii'g;1l{_)ir_e.Rural i)isstriet.. l3a1i1ga.l(')re for the ' ,,19'e1.ief-._0i~7'p;ii'i._i_i.ion. possession and allotment. 0f 1/4"} "-:sh':';1i'e l1"x"":'.:'j_ jsespeet, of the suit schedule properties deiéc;1'ill3ed as items No.1 and 2 to the plaint. The .deferidzints/writ. pei,iti01"ieI'&3 have entered appearance Earid filed their w'ri.i;iera S1'Ei'{.<;'.i"i1€1"il' and had denied. the W0.

'Ja plairit averments. When the suit" was at the st:21ge of Ehaniiiig of issues. both parties have a1'i'ived.""~-git a settlemem. and on the basis of sett.leme11t: sg1id4'.tjVo's-heaire been arrived a compromise petition z.11:ide1: Ofdet' 23_ i Rule 3 of Code of Civil Pr()(1€d1?lTC? x§;'ai=;ile__iii_ 21.03.2007. Under the more properties were i1'1.c:luded. _wh_ieh lw=as"1'£ot' Cteseribed in the plaint: schedule. Oi.2.Vi"i:':ie._p'b.asis of the said compromise petition, t:i".ia_l'-.eo'L1rt 1*et:oi9'd'ed" the same and posted the er _fi'r.)ri2_ tiiirien.todtiihe to enable the parties"t:o'~de:11()Itst'1'at.'ealas t.o_"tIlie properties which was not the .s1.i.t;_iec§tl'f.iiiatteif of the suit liaviiig been compi.fomis'edVin[a(tt_"vl3(%l'i511gs to the family of the parties.

ll"~._S1,Ibsequently <)ii'2'3.vO2.201O trial (.'.0U.l'l, has dismissed the\eoii}.pli*oi";;1ise petitiori on the ground that it was not sat;iustied~wij1ih the compromise since single cloeu1'r1er1t' to show" right, title and i11t.erest; in respect. of the l' --,.pr-o;)e1"t.ies mentioned in the compromise petition had is ,._i:i(_)t, been p1"()Cl1.l(',€Cl. 'l'l'1e ("..f()l"1'€(',l1H€'SS and legality of this 'iri't'~\./ieix-' (ﬂ[t.w() propertzies which was not the subject rri:-1tt,e.f sfL~:.it.~~ was irielucled in the eornprornise })etit,i()$ (3 order dated 23.2.2010 whicli is now questioned in the writ petition by the deferidants.

3. Heard Sri.I).R.RaVishankar.

appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing and 9 and Sri.D.Jaya1'a,rnaiah,_"" leetrrreigji appearing for respondents Noll,' 7_ar1d'8.._:l ' '

4. Sri.Ravisharikar., ' gC~OL1I1S€l for the petitioners .v\M:(A)'L:..lp(i ;_'e()nt$e:nd"gt-he1tV' gun the date of cornp'i"<)nii'se5petitﬁion filed the parties were present be'I'o1*e7t.rial ctotiirt, A:_a1_1l'd..h'aVe affixed their sigriature in the order, sheet. \,V'i1i.<,:31 is eilst) recorded by the trial court and trial ,__eoa,1.i?'t4 had dire.et.ed the parties to produce .' ..doeu1'r:ent.s to evidence that. said properties also ""._dbt:l'(3r1geéd to the family members of plairitiffs or " (i€fCI1d&11'1l"S. Same having been produced trial court was not justified in not (:()11si(le1'i1'1g;' the Same drld as such order suffers from error and he prays for sc21:t.i11g""a9side the said order and prays for arxeepting the (jV(_).njpVr"(3:'nlee petition filed. He also draws the 'c},'[ul'.€1'lt'l()MIfl»C)-E.ilﬁdﬁ to documents produced at Anne§{L1res' 4 and B-5 to contend E.hat»uVd4el'enl(E;,1_nts Iletﬂiﬂly {mgr petitioners had in fact, prod'ueed_tol1e--Se &ld()'eL1ﬁj1ents on two occasions as evidencteafl b:.yvl"t~11_e._Morder sheet, of trial Court (Ar1r1exure~E) Iron}e(;lnsi(ler2itio}:1 of these documents other U'l'21l 7_CloL11jtthe""groL1nd on which the 1Veérr1ediiT. Co'u'nsel~.AVl"fr)r the petitioner's seek for qrlashiliag of the otfdt;l.er'..[oé1»s<sed by trial court. In support of his .5/a11br12t{§'s1<)Vr'i:s l*1e""r:elies E,'1})()l"l the judgment. in the ca;é€'oéf-ev.PU5HPA 'DEVI BHAGAT (D) BY LR vs. RAJINDER Sz;vG£ijAjvD'l'0jt*;zERs reported in AIR 2006 SC 2628. Contra S1'i.K.K.Vasant.h, learned Counsel for respor1r.ie11ts No.2 to 6 and 9 would very fairly submit. ' =.t.ha€..*it. is a fact, that C()iI1pl'OI"I1lS€ petition was signed by those ressp()i'1do1'iﬁ,s and filed. He would submit: t.11ei*o no dispute wiih I'E?gE1l"d to two items of the pro-p»€rty imniely Survey Nos3.8/ 1 and 39/ E which was matter of the suit for being i1'1(:luded petition and he would contend two properties namely prope_rt.y and the residential proport.y""i1i%hi(:h in Compromise "xrvnatter of suit: and trial {3QLll"Ti to consider the genuinen'Ve:s:'5;;of this (j1é1"im4"thCr'evw:1s no Iiecessity for the 1i>}'V£V:1Hi?f"?iiTV.ii7'§"S:h5.i(> 'C3f§i*111._Ci:(1=V$é'tiratr3_"V'that the compromise was bad. 'He 4\v('2L1id:'fe13bo'1t2ifC__ his submission to contend I;hai' allezcgedo d()CL1i"r1ci»1iis;_which have been produced by the dei'e11d£ii1_tf.s/writ..'pe{fii.ioih1ei's bef()1*e trial c()urt. namely thv~f:?.j}j'L£(o'1.k£E{f11.t;f111£, 2in_ci------€:'e(:i'cée in O.S.No.2498/ 2007 f_()igde(:1arati(3r1 and there was €XCh.':lI1g€ of })rOpCz'ti&éloj----a'i1(1 said coinpmmise petition becomes a cc)ﬁ'1p'u-.ls()'i'i1y registrabie d()(:umor1.f, and on account: of 2 some 'oeizig not i*ogisi:ere<.i it cannot be noted upon and éww a('.:c.o1'cii11g]_\,-I sL.1ppor1:s the rgircie-,~.1* of t1*ia1 court. He would also si.2bn"1it t:11a'1" trial court was justified £11 arriV_i~.r__1g at its sa.tisfact.ior1 not to ei1i.o1'tam the compromise. peﬁititxli and it carmot be presumed that trial Couri.__"sI1oij1t'lRaoft as a rubber stamp or post ofi'is§éA'Vto' com promise petition w}f1t:ri _ led ' » ._ A. woA .. . _ u Way of alterriate plea that to come to a cromtlusioiii't~ha.i: 'rioi"VoXa1mi.ned the Correctness of vAA--ij'pro-duced by the petitioners. :thi's1.r,iCoz1"rt may 'r.r-:rri--é1r1d_..:the matter to the trial {ioi'iV1*1"sAfo-'1' horisiitieri-atgioi? afresh on the basis of the 2111~::ge--d d()t:'Li_111é11.is'~,pi"()dL1ced by the pet.itiom:rs h€I'eiI1. I1]"':;¢_1V;)p(irt of his submission he relies upon the " ,i1o1"d§§:i11i.r;s;'it"nu t.i1e:'"c'~j:1js'e of BHOOP SINGH vs. RAM SINGH reported in 1995 AIR sow 3927 by dr;1wi1').g-€'_hiCAat:t9eI1t.io11 oE't.h<1-3 Court to Head note A (Paras K .16 aruw1..«i:l7) (A) Registration Act (16 of 1908), S.17(2) (vi) - Compulsory registration of instruments ~ Compromise decree ~ Compulsorily registrable if it creates new__ rights.

Civil 19.0. (5 of 1903), 0.23, 12.3 f Subsection {2} of Section 1 7 of it engrafts exceptions to ,the_ ir.tstrtlr'nlents._'_=V covered only by clauses lb) citadel' section {.1}. Clause (U2? .r_elates_to arr13.,"'ll::.t;>cljree or order of a Court, e.x9é*ep"t. a decree"

expressed to be.» rnaderonrh con1prolln'itse V-and comprising tmrnoua.ble other than that which is t'hesv-subject suit or proceec£tng.;y....:.'V "Q~,'E' Section .1 7' ivtarcittates lffiat ptltejt--irisvtrrient enumerated in "{8} ' shall be registered coinpulsortly :_4the""plr'operi.y to u.vhtc:h they V . relat'e'is_ Vtnu;i':ou'cible property value of wlticli is Rs. £(_)O[« orw*upuJards. The C'X(T(3_pE"lOf1 efngrafrted in Clause {oi} of Section 17(2) is . mean: to-clover' that decree or order of a Court, fnc:lu,d3irig a decree or order expressed to be 'made on a compromise. which dectares the A ~,_pre--exist'ing right and does not by itselfcreate new right. title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- %/w...

or LL]9M!CU"d.S. Ariy other view ivoiild find the IT'liSCf1ft'2f Of avoidance of registration, which requires payment of stamp duty, er'r'zbedded'::'"'»t in the decree or order. The Court 'V therefore examine in each case u2l1etlie'r parties have pre--existir1g..... ,_rlgl1i"""'lo--:'_':» immovable properly. or whether?

order or decree of the,C_ourt orhie'V-par'ig.l.;dvirAig i right, title or irlteresttx"therein---- S SLl/_f€I"(3d to €XllT1g LliSl1:E?(it?i1ﬁ areid'vereajied right, title or it i5'raeserit'i in immovable pI'operi;3;)'_ of v'dlLle':VV.'of'V"Rs. 100/ w or LLpu.;ar'd:s:VZ"ir'1 ifciv;t):.--ir ofﬁot'f'iez.f_Hivarty for the first ;'t"1'HrIie-.V CoVrr'if9r"o:rr1.i3e or pretended he the posiiiori, the doc:i.m1.eriIZ regis trable.

('$111. Jai'r2.i_;éi21i22I73 appearing for 1'e.sponc.ie1'1ts E, 7 tamed 8e:cl<)pt._s the argume-2nt:s advanced by petitioners "c<5i;,11se1;'_~..ll, * "

~~6.*;.Havir1g heard the learned Counsels appearing for parties, the C[L1€S'U()I;1 that. arises for my (SOI1Side1*ai"i('m as under:

1) Whether the order passed by trial court dated 23,02,201 O rejecting the?

compromise petition is required confirmed, modiﬁed or reversed? .'

2) Whether the matter _re.q_aires"""'to'_':,'bev"_ remitted to trial :=cou-riff consideration? it it i' V

3) What order?

Points No.1 and 2 bei'1'1g_ i11t€'.i4Iif:ilV{cdi"Wit}? eéi('h"o't"her, the same taken up for this Court Sim L111:ane0L1;&31y , '

7. 'I"m.,e fi_1:i;»ng 61"thef_c*Qf'npro:1iisc pet.i1.i()11 as well as ztffixilig, "1hc:' '$'i_$__§1"..{:1"{.'i1i:G___iiéiiﬁti adm1'tti1'ag the cxecuiion thereofiti.inch:dita'1gi1_i21f§;ixi1c1g of the sig1'1at.u1*e by and 9 is 1101 in dispute. 111 the _ w1:)2[iC:i£s§.:=r;L11id._ '01? .rive11 c0nte1c1t'i0ns raiscri by the parties it wQiz1ci1'icccsse1ry to extract. the pr(:)(::ecdiI1gs rec()1"de?.~1 by trial court, when compromise petition was " "i='i1_c-%_Ac.i in its order slmcit which Ifeadss as undezrz §/'""

*3 21.03.2007 Plaint'i[/3 DJ.

D--I to D-3 M DRR For settlement "Shri.D.J.. Advocate filed powerfor plaintiffs No.7 to 9 ay-1d'ji1.e;;i...iA.No.2"U'/ojv 10(2) Civil Procedure Code.:=.Adpo.r:jate;for.'I3I f [)3 present' and submits 'I103 oly'ectf'ton° to 2' IA.No.2. V H b Heard. The suit is 0V.Ddr71§1T'ior:12"arid./ithe proposed plaintiffs c:tr"eéLiieQe's=sC1'7i1§}t arid proper parties. enoe V. alto .. permit ting proposed' ir"np'le£'1dV pfjiairi tiﬂs N o. 7 to 9 oggihsté_tit_ie'2.oj:plair1t.

Z}?! . ' to -29 present I)ef_ei"ad ants V Fig). " rese nt V.Joint'cornp,rorti'i.se"'petition. filed U / O 23 R 3 _(v:3r:1.eI4izé1i.tir'_i; both pI,Ct.i.IiI{'[]:3' No.1 to 3 and 5 to 9 3 submits that they know contents of. pC;orripI'oi71ise petition and they have ~~uo*iim.t"arity compromised suit. Compromise 00 appears to be uolu.nt.ary 0For order on. crompromise peimori by 26.03.2007.

Sd/-- .

H.Jayc1mrna, H.Ashwal ;"l.aI'TlI71§i. .. T }~I.S(1r'asu.vathi. H.Leelamba. 00 Bar1uma(.hi., Anupama. Sriruvasa. K. Kumar 0 T.H.Hanumanthu, I A 40 1 00 0 T. H . M uru'hanumaiah_. .

H . J (.1; ]ClS hankar , . . . . '0'"

Subsequently triai c1ou_fi'* on7_th;e cia.t.e of ldealﬁrag i.e.. on 26.03.2007 has; 0rdere_.d»as. ur1cleI?: lj "Peruséd §'§5o._:'npf0riai5e pe;>ti'tiOfi"; and plaim:

aUer}ne1*é,iS'_sL£i"i' CTQTiSiSI'S Qfonly two jji.erriS.A .. But '?ifbi':1prqf71ise_bé;iE'ii£ox'1 consists more items 'IeI'1Ci:i.V"~,$wj1x'=g;ii'0pert'y. No documenl:s produced in 'S}1ou3"_;e»t'ha1 those properties also 0 'belor1.q0irtgV_V£00;/aﬁtily. To hear by 30.03.2007."

211161 "a.(:re()1*d111.g'1ywfjdsteci the matter to hear on the 0 erji"np1"c)fi'1i$'eAip--etitj0I1 on 30.03.2007 and also to enable the-.,pai*ti?;_'s._ f.c;i0}3'1'od11(:e documerﬂs to Show that the two prE)'pe1'1Lies. W11i.eh were not the subject ma1",ter of the suit. also !.f)e1-:V")ng to the family members of the paﬁies to Suit. }??1.1fs.L.1az1t. to the said ciireeijiim issued by trial court." $,/ clefeiidz.-mi' No.3 has filed list with d()cumei'1i:s which has been received by trial 001111 on CI1d()l'S€l11€1][" made by trial court. in the ()i'd(§--r 30.3.2007 reads as under: ».

"Advocaiefor defendant " % V 2 Filed list wiih docii':Ti¢;'iis ij;r'1ci produce recent RTC by " vi 'Fhereafi,erWards the from time to time. Again Q11 V' ib1* defe11dant.s filed iiieniq made by trial CJ(v)_u__ri "iwﬁ:"'ii:1:;:::A_ said date reads as Liriderif, A "Pi.CiVii'?."1.V{'}_;'l.VVCibfiéiiiv. " represeriiaiiori.

4;: 'Cczll at I71;

.AE'd'vd:.cii;e _fbrW«d<3j]'e2r1daii1i' filed memo with V i' PlCiiii'i'§ﬂ.7:'eviderice. Last Chance 20/ 8. "

Eveti on the said date the p1ai:ntiff was absent T '' a:'1--.C.U}here was 110 represe11i',ai.ioni Agai 11 t.]1ere21fi.envards Vi .,.Ir01I1 tfinie to 1:41'4I]:'l(:? {I10 matter came to be ad_§0u1'11ed and ﬁx E -1') on 22.02.2010 it was 1'1ee:1r('1 and postrcil for 01'd(:',1's 10 23.02.2010 01:: which ciate the iriipugned orcier (:...aim_2e3,_t.() be passed i'ejec.t.i1'1g the coriipromise peti..t:i_()1i;' reasoning given by trial c0L1rt....fQ_1' 1't_*:j.é0C'tji@'_i1 0"0f".th2£:

compromise petition is that parties iizive iimt"pi*(;cii1be§i:i;1 single documerit, to show t.11e.i_f=if_ig1it.;"'title _a21iVd"ii'i"t.e1?c:'St. in * respect of two p1'opei"ti.§S f1"1V.£3E?1'.;1'.0:f1t'/2Vd_A'iI}.;[IhC~£?OIiip17O1'I'1iS€ pc-:tiit.i0n other "than schedule.

This palpably the order sheet of trial the OI'd(-)1" of trial c0'L11't:is liabltf: to V

9. B.¢-"t:1V12ii _eis. i*'i,«0f_;1a1y. in View of the c:c)1'1t.ent:i()ns 11(jw{;f, iiiised b*y__t.i1§r 1e2.1:'1'1eci Clomisel appeaifiiig for ' .ré'":;pc):1cie1i1_j;S"2 to 6 and 9 assai1_ir1g compromise petitiicm 't,11dt01g110 rijQ1:_f'(:11_a11e11geci befcire trial court the same is ciorisidéfed by this Court before analysing the .(:0h~tenti()1i1s raised by tile 1ea1'1'1c3d Counsel for fresp(')nde11ts 2 to 6 and 9. It would be 01' iﬂevantxe to obsewe from the perusal of the order sheet that after recording of the compromise petition by trial eourt~._and aiso making endorsement to the effect Compromise petition appears to be voiunt,21'ry and "afterf ' being satisfied about its exeeutiori as weil as«i_de_n.t_,ity oi?

the parties, trial court has adjourii'sed 0n.."_;n\t1rr1be--r"'ot'VB. dates the hearing on t:ompi~o'1<rii's€2 petii"tiioiii%i*orn_ tirne to time for a period of 3 {date of recording the Comproinise._pe'tivtion]~.,to-9.12SE02.2010 (date of order rejee_ti1igj.ithe e.ornprornisepetition), At no point of tiii1<:;"p1ai1.i:tifis igiaixe'~raised:_'their objection to contend what has been now. As observed herein above _V in K7ieiv»..t)f the. conteI1t.io1'1s now raised by "=.,Sri';vKV§Ki.fVasetnth xiviitih 1'e;__'§ard to two items of properties f'1']vI;f--~.S1_::ibj€Ct matter of the eornprornise petition having included in the compromise petition to it V"'e,ontend.. and support the order of trial e()u'rt:, this Court ' has ence again eorzsidered the said submission made by = -»v1}i;i€ learned C()L1US€l Sri.K.K.\/asanth.

10. The co11t.ent_io11 of the learned Cou1'1se1 for the respo1'1dent.s 2 to 6 and 9 is that lantl in Survey /4 which has been included in the eomp1*omise.4§3.et.itJior:3 was riot: the subject. rnatter of the suit: a111d__sv_éi~i.d has been included in the corrlproinisje documerit which has beene»prodL1ee:.dlb_v pl;»ziVi'i;ut;ie:ﬁs blefoiteh trial court which has also present.

writ. petition is at  the decree
passed in  reveal that a
suit. was     and others for
deC1aré1"tio:1Al..:.o.fv    was resisted by TH.

Ha1iL1rriai'athlL1 ~ ..--{vtr1"it. petitioners herein}. in the A.-said sitit (:o.n1pi'(>111ise was arrived at and a (.:o21ip1'3on1i's..<: pet.it.io11 was filed whereunde1' both the pw1;airii;vi.t'fs ' arid dei'e11dant.s therein have agreed, cc)'11se1f;te€l<:'*"e111d confirmed that the property bearing .' ..SVy.No}*S./4 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas had already been '._péu"tit',ioried amongst family members under 21 registered "';)e1:'t',it..i();1 deed dated 22.05.1916 be21ri11g regist,'1'ation @,/ l') No.3979/1915-l6 and said pa1't.itio1'i deed which had been executed amongst, the parties has been and confirmed seen from Clause 4 of .

Thus, co1'itent.ion of create or extinguish the right petitioners and CXtlI1guiS}l--..llli~6b therein cannot hold' aetroiidiriigly the contention of the it was a c:ompulso1'ily.. Section l7(l)[b) eannot be accepted as also relied upon by the the said eontem':ion is hereby rej eye-t ed.

--1_1".a 'i«:filsvo,far as the entry in the 1'€'VE.'.I'lL1€'. records it-vh'ieh 336611 c:ont;ended by the learned Counsel S1'i.V.asanth that stands still in the name of the piai:1t:.il'fs in O.S.No.2496/2007 and as such he would submit: that trial Court. was jtistified in passing the order ﬁr,»-»»«"' EU rejecting the Compromise pe/£i1.io1'i can also not be accepted for two reasoris namely.-

[a} The trial couri: has not reje(:i.ed .

compromise petition on the g_1.'E}{»3...I:1':d_ the doctumeiits p1'odu(:ed1;d0es';1.Ot ev--i.de--ific:Ve""theA property belongs to the:"f'af11_iiy plaintiffs, but, if h:§1"sV_V1'eje(:tec} _o1"i_fjhe*~g1'ound" L that. there are no {ioeuxrieiitsthprofiueeid by the parties to to family members. i A AA ' D»

(b) The passed in '- 7 4' Mfeve at that parties ____ H :__ J that the revenue _ made 21 mistake and for eiitiries both the parties 'have "ihie1'eL111der1' in Clause. 7 to address Vthen' ie1:Leif__,*._0 the revenue authorities seeking eimiige. The said decree has become final and 'thfer_e~* is no dispute in this regard.

T hi.1s.'-hthe"eo11t:ei;1t.i01i of learned Counsel That'. the order .. AAoi1"---trial court. rejeetmg the compromise petition wouid be "_j1.1st,ified, cannot be e1eeep1,ed accordingly ii. is rejected, I 1.2. Il'lS()f&1l' as secorid item of the pr0pe1"i:y riamely resideritial property there is no dispute t.h.attihis property originally belcmged to S1i1t...Vajra1ni1I_1é.__ Iiitsﬂji-er --':i>___f" _ plaintiffs and defendants. _

13. The House _'payri'ieh:t produced at Armexure ~ before trial Court stands in the name of Sl]'l.J[iV'c'a_j1:'_I:'.v1*'i'1.:._i.?1,."f,llt; the plaintiffs and predeceased her ht1sb2i1_1dVV' Vl€\?V of this the (3()I1lE;ij.'Ei(--7aIii Counsel Sri.K.K.Vasanth 21ppea1ri1i'g.,_f(;r 2 to 6 and 9 to contend that ltv"\'-"i}?'.:«f:1S'l.h.€'-- defendaiits who were LlI1.':1blC to demonstrate ' ,ih.at. p.rt3~pert.'y._l:)el()nged to the family members (:ann0t be .'a1,cfCept.eclffjj_ Aecéordiiigly this c()r1tentio'n of the "learned Courisei is also rejected.

14. Learned Coimsel Sri.K.K.Vasam:h. by way of "fa.lter1'121te plea has submitted that if the order of trial 33%"

'>7 court is to be set aside the inatter be remanded to trial court for eor1siderat.ion of the ctc)eument,s produeectand to arrive at a decision about its atit.l1en_tieitgfe. or citherwise. In the normal course this CoLirtl"-wouldhave V' remitted the matter back to consideration. However, a: pertisalhof reflects that when the do<:Lih?ielnt,s the parties it was it1eLt1r;h_'e«Ii't consider the said doC.uments. e.xa.rnii1e._the~r'ii*an'd.i_give its findings. However, Wi-tVhe§;it.__. exarrii_nir1g_l the same, inspite of the said reeoi'tirs.tb_ei11§;llavailable _o'n"1'eeord has perfunetorily, \KfiT.hO1}_l. a_ppl_iealt'iion»_ of..'rr_1ir1d has passed the order imptigned' hereirilxlroleliitg that no doetiments were pr,o§;h,ic:ted. "In_ these eireL1r11st.anees this Court. has » :CorV1si<_:lere---d 't,he documents produced before t.rial court .bv__ thief"-pai°ti'es also before this Court and having 3 eXamirieC.t:t.hen1 and found that on facts the other two propuerties also belong to the members of the family and " Court. is riot inclined to remit the i_I1at:te1* to trial ' court. and aCc:()1'dingIy. said (:o11':'ent,i()n/prayer of the teamed C()Lmse} for resp(mde1'3ts is akso rejec7ted_,,_t"..._"t~.._

15. The I-£o'r1'b1e Su.prer11e Court i.11_":Ehe':V:CEE?$3C "oft _ 9 Pushpa Devi Bhagat. has held j_ "20.__ COt'1S€qLi€I'tﬂ_1j,fthe :§t:'aterner1ts--'V--t. the. parties or their CouI'1se't;-.fertorded_by _t;he":cottrt and duly signed" by't.t1.?'te._p8fS()?1 yna.'ctr1g'E the statements. u.:o£tta_-.I9"e_ in writing signed bt;..the The_ c:ot;..rt,"V'--.hott.=ever, has to 't'ha't" of the con1fJfot::"té.:seV'h:a,r'e"'~!ia@;'i.tt:.:V. this case we ﬁnd .1' Q' that the second fendat at .t haav "executed a uakatatnama Srt. Dinesh Garg to act

- for of the suit and also to enter mitoarttj x"c,r'or:=1;3romtse. .Her'1ce there can be no 1 «(i4ot.tb=.tA:'t':'1at Srt. Dtnesh Garg was aut'hort:./,ed by c:tefer1dartt. to enter into a <;.~o'm_i;;~r¢;n-1tse_ We al.so__/'ind that the courtselfor H ptatrttt/je and counsel for the defertdartts made solemn statements on oath before the trial court specUyt.r1g the terms of compromise, wt'ti(:t1 were duty recorded in a..vrtt_ing and W signed by them. The requirements Q/' the first part: Q/"Rule 3 Qf Order XXIII are fully satL<;f'ieeI'»e. in this case. "

16. In View of the same, this C0_u,r_1._A"i.s sfatiésfied _ about the lawful compromise tehiat. 11.2153' heed between the parties and also -in View (if the»f'é1etthat.:';t.15iaII', Court while recording the u'eQi1:1prc)m'is_eI'"petition on 21.03.2007 as extracteti hel_rei;ii.ai3o*ve'~has also recorded ...L.1 V' its satisi'aeti0nva_.b0ut- Compromise petition, identity of the parties. thereof voluntariiy by part.iesi this Court has accepted the c:ompi*0rhiSe by the parties before trial I I ..... ..

_ the following order is passed:

I. I H 3 ORDER

2 ~ upetition is aliowed. Order dated 23.02.2010 .p:ets"se,d by the 11 Addit;i0r1a1 Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.). 78anga1()1'e Rural District. Ba111g.2i}()1'e {Annexure E') ﬁe/"

passed in O.S.N0.366/2006 is hereby quashed and compromise petition filed on 21.03.2007 {Am1ex1.--1'r.e--C) is hereby accepted arid the Registry is direct ed_'t()'0'd.i*aVxr V. the decree in aeeordancte with the eompr01'i'1i.sei.p'et.itiOnf_ Am'1eXure~C. N0 order as to (EOStif§.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court