Karnataka High Court
Smt S V Sugunamma vs Sri S V Pillappa Reddy on 23 February, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1461/2017
BETWEEN:
SMT. S V SUGUNAMMA
D/O.LATE SRI.S.P.VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/O.LATE SRI CHICKANAGA REDDY,
RESIDING AT NO.133,
SRINIVASA TEMPLE STREET,
MARUTHI NAGARA,
MADIWALA, BENGALURU-560068.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SWETHA DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR
SRI PAPI REDDY G, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI S V PILLAPPA REDDY
S/O.LATE SRI S.P.VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDIGN AT NO.69/2,
35TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
B.T.M. 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560068.
2. SMT P V PREMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS:
2
2(a) SMT.K.L.BHARATHI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O.SRI.S.V.PILLAPPA REDDY,
RESIDING AT NO.69/2,
35TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
B.T.M. 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560068.
2(b) SMT K L VIJAYA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O. SRI.K.N.ANKANNA REDDY,
RESIDING AT NO.107,
NEW NO.612/3, 80 FT ROAD,
4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560034.
2(c) SMT K L SUJATHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O.SRI.Y.L.BABU REDDY,
RESIDING AT NO.903/1,
5TH CROSS,
K.N.EXTENSION,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU-560022.
2(d) SRI K L SATHISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O.LATE SRI.K.LINGAPPA REDDY,
R/A.NO.614, 3RD CROSS,
3RD BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560034.
3. SMT S V PUSHPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
D/O.LATE SRI.S.P.VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
W/O.SRI.JANARDHANA REDDY,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.101,
"JAKARDU APARTMENTS",
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560068.
3
4. SMT BHAVYA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
D/O.LATE SRI.S.V.GURU REDDY,
W/O.SRI.SRINIVASA REDDY,
RESIDING AT NO.199,
10TH "A" CROSS, 29TH MAIN ROAD,
10TH CROSS ROAD,
27TH MAIN, I-SECTOR,
H.S.R.LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560010.
5. SMT S G TEJASWINI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
D/O.LATE SRI S.V.GURU REDDY,
W/O.SRI.N.AJAY KUMAR,
RESIDING AT "SPECTRE APARTMENT",
(C)-BLOCK, KUNDALAHALLI GATE,
VARTHUR MAIN ROAD,
THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU-560066.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.N.VISHWANATHA, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI D.K.NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2(a) TO R2(d),
SMT. VEENA .B, ADV. FOR R3,
SRI GIRIDHAR S.V, ADV. FOR C/R4 & 5.)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 19.4.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.8459/2007 ON THE FILE OF
THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND
SEPARATE POSSESSION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Smt. Shwetha Deshpande, learned counsel for Sri. Papi Reddy G, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. T. N. Vishwanatha, learned counsel for respondent 4 No.1, Sri. D. K. Nagaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.2(a) to 2(d), Smt. Veena B., learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri. Giridhar S. V., learned counsel for caveator/respondent Nos.4 and 5.
2. The parties have filed into the Court Memorandum of Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the parties have annexed two Release Deeds executed between them whereby, the relationship between the parties and shares that have been amicably agreed upon have been denoted and also evidences the terms of relinquishment of rights by one set of parties in favour of the other set of parties. That apart, on perusal of Compromise Petition, it also details the payment of a sum of Rs.5,90,00,000/- in favour of the appellant, respondent Nos.2 (a) to 2(d) and respondent No.3.
54. Respondent Nos.2 (a) to 2(d) are not present.
Learned counsel Sri. D. K. Nagaraj, submits that they have been paid cash and also as noted in the petition, property as allotted in terms of the Release Deed.
5. Respondent No.3 also is not present. Learned counsel Smt. Veena B. submits that she has been instructed to admit receipt of cash component and allotment of property.
6. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are present and are identified by their counsel.
7. The memorandum reads as under:-
"MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
The Appellant and the Respondents respectfully submit as under:
01. The Appellant and the Respondents on the advise of their friends, relatives and well wishers and out of their own will and volition without any element of misrepresentation, fraud, coercive, or undue influence. The 6 present compromise is entered into to ensure that the litigation is resolved amicably. It is agreed between the Parties that the present compromise is arrived at after securing due legal advise from their respective Counsels and being aware on merits and demerits of the respective case.
02. The Parties submit that one S.V.Venkataswamy Reddy and Smt. Sarojamma had 2 sons and 3 daughters. The 3 daughters are (1) Smt. S.V.Sugunamma (Appellant), (2) Smt.S.V.Premamma (since deceased and represented by her children, the Respondents 2(a), 2 (b), 2 (c) and 2 (d);
(3) Smt. S.V.Pushmamma (Respondent No.3). The 2 sons are (1) Sri. S.V.Pillappa Reddy (Respondent No.1) and (2) S.V.Guru Reddy (since deceased) and represented by his daughters Respondents 4 and 5 herein.
03. The Appellant herein is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.8549/2007 instituted against her sisters and brothers for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the immovable property described in the Schedule to the Plaint at Item Nos.1 to 12. The said suit for partition and separate possession is instituted by the Appellant claiming 1/5th share of the Schedule Property on the allegation that her father Sri.S.P.Venkataswamy Reddy expired intestate on 21.05.2006 and that she is consequently entitled to 1/5th share of the estate irrespective of the fact that the said property was the Joint Family Property. It was further 7 case of the Appellant that the Deed of Partition executed on 16.04.2001 between her father S.P.Venkataswamy Reddy and his sons S.V.Guru Reddy and S.V.Pillappa Reddy duly registered as Document No.150/2001-2002, of Book I, Volume 2342 at Pages 201 to 207, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar Jayanagar, was secured without his knowledge. On the basis of the said pleadings and in the face of the said Deed of Partition, duly registered, the suit for partition and separate possession was filed.
04. The Respondent No.1 entered appearance and filed his Written Statement contending that the suit for Partition and Separate Possession is not maintainable as the Appellant is not coparcener and in view of the Deed of Partition already executed on 16.04.2001 and duly registered, the suit requires to be dismissed.
05. The Respondent No.3 (Smt.Pushpamma) filed the Written Statement seeking a Decree of the suit and for allotment of the 1/5th share in the Schedule Property to the suit. Smt. Premamma, the Defendant No.2 was placed exparte and did not contest the suit. On her demise her three daughters and son were substituted as the Defendant 2 (a) to 2 (d) and are the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) herein and they also did not contest the suit.
06. The Respondents 4 and 5 being the daughters of Late Sri.S. V.Guru Reddy contested the suit of the Appellant to 8 the effect that the daughters of Sri.Venkataswamy Reddy are not coparceners and consequently are not entitled to maintain the suit for partition and separate possession on account of the Deed of Partition already executed on 16.04.2001 and consequently sought for dismissal of the suit.
07. The Appellant was examined as PW.1 and was cross examined in the suit. On the basis of the statements made in the Plaint and in the Examination in Chief, and the admissions in the cross examination, the Respondents 4 and 5 preferred an Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the Plaint. Upon the said Interlocutory Application being lodged, the Court, in O.S.No.8459/2007, the Court framed a Preliminary Issue and vide Order dated 19.04.2017 held that the suit of the Appellant is dismissed as not maintainable and directed the Decree of dismissal to be drawn and consequently dismissed the suit. The present Regular First Appeal is filed challenging the said Judgement and Decree in the said suit by the Plaintiff/Appellant.
08. The Parties submit that subsequent to the institution of the suit they have discussed various modalities for the settlement of disputes between the parties and taking into consideration that the dispute is between the members of the family, the Appellant and the Respondents have agreed 9 to settle their disputes and differences as detailed hereunder:
a. It is agreed between the Parties that the present Compromise has entered into by the Parties for self and representing their respective family members.
b. The Plaintiff, the legal representatives of her sister i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 being the daughters of Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy and Smt.Sarojamma do hereby confirm covenant and declare that they have no manner of right, title or interest in the Schedule Property to the suit and which is the subject matter of this Appeal. The Plaintiff and the Respondent No.3 do hereby in accordance with the same unconditionally withdraw all the allegations made in the Plaint and the Written Statement respectively.
c. The Plaintiff, the legal representatives of her sister i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 being the daughters of Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy and Smt.Sarojamma do hereby confirm covenant and declare that the Deed of Partition entered into between Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy and his two sons alone and duly registered as Document No.150/2001-2002, of Book I, Volume 2342 at Pages 201 to 207, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar Jayanagar, is valid legal and binding and all 10 the allegations made against the said Deed shall stand withdrawn in entirety.
d. The Plaintiff, the legal representatives of her sister i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 being the daughters of Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy and Smt.Sarojamma do hereby confirm covenant and declare that the Judgement and Decree of dismissal of the suit filed by them is in accordance with law and that the present Appeal filed against the same shall stand dismissed in entirety and with costs. The dismissal of the Original Suit and the present Regular First Appeal arising from the said suit is with prejudice to the said Appellant and the Respondents 2 and 3. However, the Respondent No.1 on the one hand and the Respondents No.4 and 5 on the other have independently provided the daughters of Late Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy as detailed under this compromise and independent of the suit and without recognition of any manner of right, title and interest of the Appellant, the legal representatives of her sisters i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3.
e. The Appellant, the legal representatives of her sisters i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 being the daughters of Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy and Smt.Sarojamma do hereby collectively confirm covenant and declare the extent of lands being provided to them collectively under the present compromise and the 11 amounts being paid shall not be construed as an admission either express or implied by the Respondent No.1 or the Respondents 4 and 5 of any manner or right, title or interest in the Schedule Properties to the present suit.
f. The Appellant, the legal representatives of her sisters i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 being the daughters of Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy and Smt.Sarojamma do hereby collectively confirm covenant and declare that the are no other properties of their father and mother which could have been the subject matter of claim by them and that all the properties have been included in the suit, which has been rightly rejected. The Appellant, the legal representatives of her sisters i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 confirm that the properties added to the Deed of Partition is of such a nature that was capable of being partitioned on 16.04.2001 between the parties to the said Deed of Partition and that they had no right in the said properties, and therefore were rightly not included in the array of executants or beneficiaries under the said Deed of Partition.
g. In so far as the properties which are in the individual names of the Respondent No.1, and the father of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are concerned, it is declared by the Plaintiff, the legal representatives of her sisters i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 12 being the daughters of Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy and Smt.Sarojamma that the said properties are the individual self acquired properties of the respective members and the non-inclusion of the same is deliberate and in recognition that the said properties are the individual properties of the said Respondent No.1 and the father of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
h. The Plaintiff, the legal representatives of her sister i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 being the daughters of Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy and Smt.Sarojamma do hereby collectively confirm covenant and declare that in the event of there being any property of either Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy and Smt.Sarojamma, ascertained to exist in future, which was not the subject matter of the suit, the same shall be deemed to be specifically relinquished in favour of the Respondent No.1 on the one hand to the extent of half share and to the Respondents 4 and 5 to the extent of half share and the daughters of Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy and Smt.Sarojamma shall have no manner or right, title or interest over the same.
i. The Plaintiff, the legal representatives of her sister i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 being the daughters of Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy and Smt.Sarojamma do hereby collectively confirm covenant and declare that all other properties owned or allotted of 13 the Respondent No.1 on the one hand and the properties owned or allotted of the Respondent No.4 and 5 on the other hand shall be deemed to be the self-acquired properties of the said respective Respondents and that they have no right over the same. Similarly, all the properties allotted to the Respondent No.1 and all the properties allotted to the father of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, under the Deed of Partition executed on 16.04.2001, shall be deemed to be the self-acquired properties of the respective allotees under the Deed of Partition.
j. The Plaintiff, the legal representatives of her sister i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 being the daughters of Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy and Smt.Sarojamma do hereby collectively confirm covenant and declare that they also do not have any manner of right, title or interest in the properties allotted to the share of Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy under the Deed of Partition executed on 16.04.2001.
k. In view of the above and out of love and affection that the Respondent No.1 has towards his sisters and voluntarily as a term of the compromise has affected payment of a sum of Rs.5,90,00,000/- [Rupees Five Crores Ninety lakhs Only] to his sisters being the Appellant, the children of the Respondent No.2 and to the Respondent No.3 and the said Appellant and the legal representatives of Respondent 2 14 and the Respondent No.3 have collectively executed in favour of the Respondent No.1 a Deed of Release executed on 09.04.2021, duly registered as Document No.SRJ-01- 00261/2021-2022, of Book I, contained in C.D.No.SJRD842, in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Sarjapur, Registration District of Basavanagudi, where under they have relinquished all right, title and interest to the properties forming part and parcel of the said Deed of Release which includes the properties acquired by the Respondent No.1 under the Deed of Partition executed on 16.04.2001 and his self acquired properties. The said consideration of Rs.5,90,00,000/- [Rupees Five Crores Ninety Lakhs Only] has been received by the Appellant and the legal representatives of her sister i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d), which Deed of Release is appended to this compromise as at Annexure A. l. The Respondent No.1 has affected payment to the Appellant, the legal representatives of her sisters i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 in the manner as detailed hereunder:
Sl.No. Details of Payment Amount
(i) A sum of Rs.99,00,000/-
[Rupees Ninety Nine Lakhs Only] by way of Demand Draft No.060248, dated Rs.99,00,000.00 24.03.2021, drawn on Canara Bank, SME Branch, 15 Mahadevapura, Bangalore, in favour of Suguna.S.V @ S.V.Sugunamma i.e., the Appellant herein;
(ii) A sum of
Rs,99,00,000/-
[Rupees Ninety Nine
Lakhs Only] by way of
Demand DraJt
No.060247, dated Rs.99,00,000.00
24.03.2021, drawn on
Canara Bank, SME
Branch,
Mahadevapura,
Bangalore, in favour
of Suguna.S.V @
S.V.Sugunamma i.e.
the Appellant herein;
(iii) A sum of
Rs,49,50,000/-
[Rupees Forty Nine
Lakhs Fifty Thousand
Only] by way of
Demand Draft Rs,49,50,000.00
No.060316, dated
08.04.2021, drawn on
Canara Bank, SME
Branch,
Mahadevapura,
Bangalore, in favour
of Suguna.S.V @
S.V.Sugunamma, i.e.
the Appellant herein;
(iv) A sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakh and Fifty
Thousand Only) Rs.2,50,000.00
deducted and paid as
TDS on account of
Suguna.S.V @
S.V.Sugunamma, i.e.
the Appellant herein;
16
(v) A sum of
Rs.49,50,000/-
[Rupees Forty Nine
Lakhs Fifty Thousand
Only] by way of
Demand Draft Rs.49,50,000.00
No.060317, dated
08.04.2021, drawn on
Canara Bank, SME
Branch,
Mahadevapura,
Bangalore, in favour
of K.L.Bharathi, i.e.
the Respondent No.2A
herein;
(vi) A sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) Rs.50,000.00
deducted and paid as
TDS on account of
K.LBharathi i.e., the
Respondent No.2A
herein;
(vii) A sum of
Rs.49,50,000/-
[Rupees Forty Nine
Lakhs Fifty Thousand
Only] by way of
Demand Draft Rs.49,50,000.00
No.060315, dated
08.04.2021, drawn on
Canara Bank, SME
Branch,
Mahadevapura,
Bangalore, in favour
of K.L.Vijaya, i.e., the
Respondent No.2 B
herein;
(viii) A sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) Rs.50,000.00
deducted and paid as
17
TDS on account of
K.LVijaya i.e., the
Respondent No.2 B
herein;
(ix) A sum of
Rs.50,00,000/-
[Rupees Fifty Lakhs
Fifty Thousand Only]
by way of Cheque
bearing No.750347, Rs.50,00,000.00
dated 09.04.2021,
drawn on Canara
Bank, SME Branch,
Mahadevapura,
Bangalore, in favour
of K.L.Sujatha, i.e.,
the Respondent No.2
C herein;
(x) A sum of
Rs.44,05,000/-
[Rupees Forty Four
Lakhs and Five
Thousand Only] by
way of Cheque Rs.44,05,000.00
bearing No.750348,
dated 09.04.2021,
drawn on Canara
Bank, SME Branch,
Mahadevapura,
Bangalore, in favour
of K.L.Sujatha, i.e.,
the Respondent No.2
C herein;
(xi) A sum of Rs.95,000/-
(Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) Rs.95,000.00
deducted and paid as
TDS on account of
K.L.Sujatha, i.e., the
Respondent No.2 C
herein;
(xii) A sum of
18
Rs.4,95,000/- [Rupees
Four Lakhs and Ninety
Five Thousand Only]
by way of Demand
Draft bearing Rs.4,95,000.00
No.060313, dated
08.04.2021, drawn on
Canara Bank, SME
Branch,
Mahadevapura,
Bangalore, in favour
of K.L.Satish Kumar,
i.e., the Respondent
No.2 D herein;
(xiii) A sum of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five
Thousand Only) Rs.5,000.00
deducted and paid as
TDS on account of
K.L.Satish Kumar, i.e.,
the Respondent No.2
D herein;
(xiv) A sum of
Rs.99,00,000/-
[Rupees Ninety Nine
Lakhs Only] by way of
Demand Draft
No.060245, dated Rs.99,00,000.00
24.03.2021, drawn on
Canara Bank, SME
Branch,
Mahadevapura,
Bangalore, in favour
of S V Pushpa @
S.V.Pushpamma i.e.,
the Respondent No.3
herein;
(xv) A sum of
Rs.39,60,000/-
[Rupees Thirty Nine
Lakhs and Sixty
Thousand Only] by
way of Demand Draft Rs.39,60,000.00
19
No.060322, dated
24.03.2021, drawn on
Canara Bank, SME
Branch,
Mahadevapura,
Bangalore, in favour
of S V Pushpa @
S.V.Pushpamma i.e.,
the Respondent No.3
herein;
(xvi) A sum of
Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh and Forty
Thousand Only) Rs.1,40,000.00
deducted and paid as
TDS on account of S V
Pushpa @
S.V.Pushpamma i.e.,
the Respondent No.3
herein
(xvii) Total [Rupees Five Rs.5,90,00,000.00
Crores Ninety Lakhs
Only]
m. The Parties to this Compromise further state that by
typographical error the amount paid is shown as Rs. 6,00,00,000/- ( Rupees Six Crores Only) instead of Rs. 5,90,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Ninety Lakhs Only) in the Deed of Release on 09.04.2021, duly registered as Document No.SRJ-01-00261/2021-2022, of Book I, contained in C.D.No.SJRD842, in the Office of Sub- Registrar, Sarjapur, Registration District of Basavanagudi and the neither the Appellants nor the other Respondents have any objection or claim over the same and they are confirming the said mistake is bonafide and typographical error and further acknowledge the receipt 20 Rs.5,90,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Ninety Lakhs Only) and further exonerate the Respondent No.1 from making any payment with respect to execution of Deed of Release on 09.04.2021, duly registered as Document No.SRJ-01- 00261/2021-2022, of Book I, contained in C.D.No.SJRD842, in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Sarjapur, Registration District of Basavanagudi and the Releasees/ Respondent No.1 party to the said Release Deed is at liberty to deal as they deem fit with respect to the Schedule Properties so released under the said Release Deed without there being any interference or any right title or claim either by the Appellants or their legal heirs or any one claiming under them.
n. Similarly, on account of the above and out of love and affection that the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have towards the Appellant, the legal representatives of her sisters i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3, have voluntarily agreed to executed a Deed of Release, as a term of the compromise, jointly in favour of the Appellant, the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 in an extent of 1 Acre and 22 Guntas and 3 Guntas of Kharab being the converted lands contained in Sy.No. 28/5 of Rayasandra Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The Respondent No.4 and 5 have accordingly executed a Deed of Release on 01.11.2021, and duly registered as Document No.SRJ-1-05757/2021-22, of Book I, contained in C.D.No.SRJD1015, in the Office of Sub-
21Registrar, Sarjapur in the Registration District of Basavanagudi, Bangalore, which property is hereinafter referred to as the "Released Property" and which Deed of Release is annexed to this Compromise Petition as at Annexure B. o. The said "Released Property" is presently standing in the name of the Respondent No.5 as of present and in view of the higher contribution by the Respondent No.5, the Respondent No.4 has agreed to the reimbursement of an extent of 20 Guntas by her to the Respondent No.4 in Sy.No.36/2 of Rayasandra Village either by way of land or the proportionate sital area considering that the said lands in entirety and the adjoining lands are proposed to be developed.
p. Additionally, the Respondent No.4 has given two sites bearing Nos.43 and 50 as detailed in the said Deed of Release to the Appellant as a term of the compromise, and which the Appellant has received whilst acknowledging that Site Nos. 45, 48 and 49 is owned by the Respondent No.4 as detailed in Annexure B. q. The payment of monies by the Respondent No.1 and the provision of lands by the Respondent No.4 and 5 to the Appellant, the legal representatives of her sisters i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3, and the two sites to the Appellant is in view of their request on 22 compassionate grounds and towards reimbursement of legal expenses incurred in the litigation and by way of love and affection, and not otherwise.
r. The Appellant, the legal representatives of her sister i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 have executed a Deed of Release on 01.11.2021 in respect of the Schedule Properties and such other properties in favour of the Respondents 4 and 5 and which Deed of Release is duly registered as Document No.SRJ-1- 05756/2021-2022, of Book I, contained in C.D.No.SRJD1015, in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Sarjapura, in the Registration District of Basavanagudi, Bangalore and which Deed of Release is produced as at Annexure C. s. The Appellant, the legal representatives of her sister i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 confirm that they have never had and do not have any manner of right, title or interest or in the properties which are the subject matter of Release as per Annexure C and that the said Deed is executed by them of their own free will and volition.
t. The Parties agree that the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.8459/2007 is valid and legal and that the daughters of Late Sri. Venkata Swamy Reddy are not entitled to institute the suit for partition and separate 23 possession and the said Judgement is accepted by the daughters the Appellant, the legal representatives of her sisters i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 in entirety. Consequently, the parties agree that the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.8459/2007 shall stand confirmed and the present Appeal shall stands dismissed in entirety.
u. The Appellant, the legal representatives of her sisters i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 on the one hand and the Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 on the other hand mutually and unconditionally agree that the Suit and Appeal being dismissed, there is no necessity of the drawing up of either a Preliminary or Final Decree and there is no necessity for the registration of the Decree of the Trial Court of this Hon'ble Court.
v. The Respondent No.3 Smt.Pushpamma who has filed a Written Statement, claiming her 1/5th share in the suit, hereby specifically confirms that the dismissal of the suit includes the dismissal of her Written Statement claiming 1/5th share and that her right has been adjudicated upon while dismissing the suit.
w. The Appellant and the Respondents specifically confirm, covenant and declare that the Deed of Partition executed on 16.04.2001 and duly registered as Document No.150/2001/2002 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, 24 Jayanagar has been entered into by their father /predecessor of his free will and violation and the partition of the parties under the said Deed of Partition is fair, legal and all the Parties confirm that they are not entitled to challenge the same. The Appellant, the legal representatives of her sisters i.e., the Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (d) and the Respondent No.3 further confirm that at the time of execution of the Deed of Partition dated 16.04.2001 Sri.Venkataswamy Reddy was in good health both physically and mentally and that the allegations made contrary to the same stands withdrawn unconditionally.
x. The Parties agreed that the suit for partition in O.S.No.1977/1985 instituted by the S.V.Guru Reddy and S.V.Pillappa Reddy in respect of the lands in Survey No.91/2 of Tavarekere Village was instituted only to ensure that the lands could be saved from the provisions of the erstwhile Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 considering that the said property was located within the urban agglomeration area. The Parties confirm that the allotment of the sites to the daughters of Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy in O.S.No.1977/1985 was merely for the said collateral purposes and not with any intention to declare or confirm that the daughters of Venkataswamy Reddy are coparceners and further not with any intention to admit that they are entitled to share in the other properties. The Appellant and the Respondents specifically confirm that the compromise entered into in 25 O.S.No.1977/1985 does not in any manner change their status and they confirm that they are not coparceners and consequently confirm that they are not entitled to any share in any of the properties to the present Appeal or the properties to the Deed of Release as executed by them in favour of the Respondent No.1 or the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
y. The Appellant and the Respondents confirm and declare that the Respondent No.1 is in possession of the properties allotted to him under the partition and that the Respondents 4 and 5 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties allotted to their father and consequently the other Parties confirm that they will have interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties of the Respondent No.1 or the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, respectively, in any manner and whatsoever.
09. It is agreed between the parties that there is no collusion in execution of the present and compromise is entered into after detailed deliberation and with an intention to settle all disputes in the manner as contained in the present Compromise.
PRAYER Wherefore, the Appellant and the Respondents pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take the above Compromise Petition on record, accept the same, record 26 satisfaction of the compromise arrived at and dismiss the Appeal by confirming the Judgement and Decree passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, [CCH- 10], Bangalore City, Bangalore dated 19.04.2017, passed in O.S.No.8459/2007, in the interest of justice and equity.
Sd/- Sd/-
APPELLANT ADVOCATE FOR APPEALLANT
Sd/- Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.1 ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 1
Sd/- Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.2A ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 2A
Sd/- Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.2B ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 2B
Sd/- Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.2C ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 2C
Sd/- Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.2D ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 2D
Sd/- Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.3 ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 3
Sd/- Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.4 ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 4
Sd/- Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.5 ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 5
27
VERIFICATION
We, the Appellant and the Respondents herein, do hereby state and declare that the contents of the Compromise Petition are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief.
Sd/- Sd/-
APPELLANT RESPONDENT NO.1
Sd/- Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.2A RESPONDENT NO.2B
Sd/- Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.2C RESPONDENT NO.2D
Sd/- Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.3 RESPONDENT NO.4
Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.5
BANGALORE
DATED: 20.01.2022"
8. Learned counsel for the appellant prays that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties on 28 account of an out of court settlement, the appeal may be dismissed.
9. Submission of learned counsels is placed on record.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed affirming the order and decree in O.S.No.8459/2007 dated 19.04.2017 passed by the XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City.
Office to draw decree accordingly and refund the permissible Court fee.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE dn/-
CT-HR