Karnataka High Court
Kallu Bhavi Kanakappa vs Kallu Bhavi Hanumanthappa Since ... on 9 April, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B. Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI
No.1138 2002 DEC
BETWEEN:
Kallubhavi Kanakappa,
Sb. Late Kallubhavi Hanumanthappa,
Since deceased by his LRs
1(a) Smt. Rathnamma,
W/o, Late Kallubhavi Kanakappa,
Aged about 45 years,
Narasapura village, Neganahalli Post,
Hospet Taluk,
District : Bellary.
1(b) K. Ashok,
Sb. Late Kallubhavi Kanakappa,
Aged about 30 years,
Narasapura village, Neganahalli Post,
Hospet Taluk,
District: Bellary,
1(c) K. Manjunath,
Sb. Late Kallubhavi Kanakappa,
Aged about 25 years,
Narasapura village, Neganahalii Post,
Hospet Think,
District : Bellary.
1(d) Smt, Geetha,
D/o, Late Kallubhavi Kanakappa,
Aged about 22 years,
Narasapura village, Neganahalli Post
Hospet Taluk,
District : Bellary.
2 Kallubhavi Bharmappa,
Sb. Late. Kallubhavi Hanumanthappa,
Since deceased by his LRs
2(a) Smt, Renukamma,
W/o Late Kallubhavi Bharamappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at Ward No, XVI fort,
Hospet,
fist : Bellary.
2(b) Ramesh, Sb. Late, Kallubhavi Bharamappa,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at. Ward No, XVI fort,
Hospet,
fist: Be11ary
2(c) Gangamma, D/o. Late Kallubhavi Bharamappa,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at. Ward No, XVI fort,
Hospet,
fist: Be11ary
2(d) Thayamma D/o. Late Kaliubhavl Bharamappa,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at. Ward ]o, fort,
Hospet,
fist : BeIIary
1
U Ut31
t1W1
it se
01 l• V
ojS
1
, v
oIa
uis
oJS
'xOJ tM
,oI1
4
4(a) LK Viswantha, Sb. Venkatapati,
R/at 3rd Ward, Patel Nagar,
Hospet
Appellant
(By Sri Bahubali A. Danawade, Sri SS,Bawakhan, Advs,
Sri S.KNenkata Reddy, Adv for A-4(A);
Appeal against Al to A3 is not pressed)
AND:
I Kaflubhavi Hanumanthappa,
Since deceased by his LRs
1(a) KKrishnappa Sf0. Late K. Hanumanthappa
Aged about 54 years, 0cc : AgriL,
R/aL Poojari OnL
11th Ward, Hospet.
1(b) K. Ramesh Sb. Late K. Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 45 years, 0cc : AgriL,
R/at, Poojari Oni,
11th Ward, Hospet.
2. Kallibhavi Krishtappa,
Sb. Kailubhavi Lingappa,
Aged about 65 years,
0cc Agriculturist.
R/ at Ward No.X1,
Poojari Oni, Hospet.
Hindu-s, Rf at, Anantasayanagudi,
Tq : Hospet.
3. Srnt. B. Lakshamavva
W/o. Badigeru Hanuma nthappa,
Aged about 77 years. Hindus
R/ at. Anantasayanagudi,
Tq : Hospet.
4. Paravva, D/o, Badigeru Hanumanthappa,
Aged Major,
(Respondent No.4 is deleted as per the court order dated
22.06.2005)
5. Smt. Badigi Thayamma
Since deceased by her LRs
5(a) Badigi Hulugappa,
Sb, Badigi Mudukappa,
R/at. Kalamangi Village in
Sindhanur Taluk,
Dist: Raichur,
5(b) Smt. Huligemma,
D/o. Badigi Mudukappa
W/o. Badigi Mariyappa,
Aged about 41 years,
Berigi Village, Sindhanur Taluk
Raichur District.
5(c) Badigi Honnappa,
Sb. Lat Badigi Mudukappa,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at Kalmangi Village,
Sindhanur Taluk,
Dist: ]R.aichur.
(The Respondents No, 5(a) to 5(c) were deleted as per the
Court order dated 08.12.2011)
6. Smt. Banadakerl Thayamma,
Hadunani Thayamma
6
W/ø Late Bauadakeri Kanakappa,
4
/o, Kallubhavl Liugappa,
Aged about 83 years, Hindu,
0cc : Agriculturist,
4 16th Ward, Near AC's Office,
R/at
Hospet.
7. Smt.. Manvi Mahaukalauuna,
4 Mauvi Kalakappa,
W/o
D/o Late Kallubbavl Lingappa,
Aged about 79 years,
0cc : Agriculturist,
R/at. Naregal in. Ron Taluk
Dist: Gadag
4
84 Siut. Badigera Juttada Narasaxnma,
W/o, Badigera Juttada Mudukappa,
D/o. of Late Kallubhavi Lingappa,
Aged about 53 years,
0cc : Agriculturist,
Rf at. Naregal in. Ron Taluk,
Dist, Gadag.
Respondents
(Respondents No 6 to 8 are deleted as per the court order
dated 09 01.2012)
(By ri S V Shastri Adv for R IA RIB R2 R3
R 4, R5A to R5C, R6 to R8 are deleted)
This RPA is flied under 'ection 96 and Order 41
Rnh I nf CPC agams* tb judgment zirnI d.fE1
12.09.2002 passed in 0 8.No 9811994 on the file of the
Civil Judge (Sr Dii) and JMYC Ilospet decreeing the suit
or declaration, poe. ession correction f ei ii ie ecords
and inesne profits
7
This RFA coming on for orders, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
By order dated O&122O11, appeal has been dIsmissed in so far as appellant Nose 1 to 3 (Defendants 1 to 3) and also permitted to delete respondent No5 Again by order dated O9OL2O12, memo was filed for deletion of respondent Nos 6 to 8 Same was allowed c4 opeJ [n t * Thereafter, the remaining parties that is L__ flaxit No1 (A to D), appellant No.2(AtoE),appeiiantJ iNo3(Ato respondent No 1(A) and 1(B), respondent No2 and 3 have entered into compromise Learned counsel for the appellants and respondents submits that/all the parties to the compromise petition are present. They accepted the terms of the compromise. Both counsel have also signed the compromise petition. I.n view of the same, the judgment and decree of the trial court stands inodifled in terms of the compromise 8 petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 nw Section 151 of cPc Office is directed to draft the compromise decree in terms of the compromise petitions No order as to costs (SUBHASH B,ADI) JUDGE mkc I 6PM RPA No 1138/2002 30.05 2012 ORDER T. A.No. 1/2012 is filed for correction of the tvpograplucal error in the judgment dated 09.04 2012 It is stated that. in page no., at para 2 of the judgment, instead of IRs of appellant No.1 (A to D), appellant No.2 (A to E),appdllantNo3(AtoC')' thewords 'IRs of appellant No4, 4(a)' has to be substituted.
There is no objection to the said correction from the respondents. l.A ?%o 1/201218 allowed Office is directed to substitute the words of appellan No.1 .A to D). appellant lo.2 A to fl appellant Nn 3 (A to C)', cuth the ciords IRs of appellant No 4.4(a)' 01 JD1 mitt