Karnataka High Court
Shivanna vs Jayalakshmamma on 12 July, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1972 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVANNA
S/O LATE KUNTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF THATTEKERE
VILLAGE,
CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. NARAYANA
S/O RAM RAO
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT II CROSS,
CHURCH ROAD,
CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI N.SUBBA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE G.PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2
DOOR NO.1504/1,
V.T.STREET FORT,
CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. SMT.V.GOWRAMMA
W/O NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
DOOR NO.279/Y,
I MAIN, 7TH BLOCK,
IV PHASE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
3. SMT.NIRMALA
W/O DODDE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BHOHALLI VILLAGE,
VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK - 562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
4. SMT.HONNAMMA
W/O LATE M.K.VENKATE GOWDA,
RESIDED AT DOOR NO.1848,
MOOLEKEREI, NEAR RAMAMANDIRA,
MANGALAWARPET,
CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
SINCE DEAD AND THE PLAINTIFFS
HAVE NOT BROUGHT HERE L.R's
ON RECORD IN THE CAUSE TITLE
BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.
5. SRI M.V.VENKATAPPA
S/O LATE M.K.VENKATE GOWDA,
R/A No.1848
MOOLEKERI, NEAR RAMA MANDIRA,
MANGALAWARPET
3
CHENNAPATNA TOWN 562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT
BROUGHT L.R'S OF THIS
DEFENDANT IN CAUSE TITLE
BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.
6. M.V.SATHYANARAYANA
S/O M.K.VENKATEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NO.5, JATTAPPA LAYOUT
YELACHENAHALLI
KRISHNADEVARAYANA NAGARA
II STAGE,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 078.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.G.SATEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3,
R2 AND R6 ARE SD., BUT UNREPTD.,)
*****
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1
R/W SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JDUGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 2.9.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.85/2012 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, DECREEING
THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
The appellants, who are defendant Nos.4 and 5, respectively, in O.S.No.85/2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Channapatna, have come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2013, in allowing the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs / respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein.
2. It is seen that defendant Nos.1 and 2, namely Smt.Honnamma and Sri.M.V.Venkatappa have died during the pendency of the suit in the court below. Therefore, they are not made as parties to this proceeding and it is also stated that their legal heirs were already on record as other defendants and the suit is proceeded in their presence, since all the parties were aware of the same and as they are present before this Court as appellants and respondents. This appeal is already admitted on 25.02.2015.
5
3. When the appeal is at the stage of final hearing, it is seen that a settlement is arrived at between the parties with the intervention of elders and well-wishers in the family. Accordingly, a compromise petition is prepared and executed by the parties to this proceeding in the presence of their respective counsel and the same is filed before this court on 03.07.2018.
4. This day the appellants and the surviving respondents are before this Court with their respective counsels. The learned counsel for the parties submit to the court that a settlement has been arrived between the parties and that the same is recorded and filed as compromise petition and that the same may be substituted to the decree passed by the court below. Their submission is accepted and recorded. Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of the compromise petition arrived at between the appellants and respondents. 6
5. In confirmation of the fact that the parties have entered compromise and resolved their dispute between them, they would affix their signatures in the order sheet of this Court and all the parties are identified by their respective counsels.
6. So far as respondent Nos.2 and 6 are concerned, it is stated that they are not represented by their counsel. However, the other parties present before the Court accept that they are the siblings and family members and they are identified by the other parties and the learned counsel appearing for the other parties. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed off in terms of the compromise petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE JJ