Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 43 (KAR)

Dodda Somasetty v. Baby Shashikala

2010-01-12

H.BILLAPPA

body2010
Judgment : The appellants, Smt. Sukanya, the mother and natural guardian of respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for the parties are present before the Court. They have filed a compromise petition under Order 23, Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. The respondents have filed Misc. Civil No.21671 of 2009 seeking leave of this Court to compromise the matter. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has filed certificate dated 12-11-2009 stating that the compromise is in the interest of the minors and for the benefit of the minors. 3. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of Misc. Civil No. 21671 of 2009. Misc. Civil No. 21671 of 2009 is allowed and Smt. Sukanya, the mother and natural guardian of the respondents 1 and 2, is permitted to compromise the matter on behalf of the minors. 4. The compromise petition filed under Order 23, Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC reads as under: Appellants and respondents in the above case, submit this compromise petition in the following terms and conditions. – 1. The respondent-BabyShashikala and other have filed suit O.S.No.2 of 2002 in the file Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hunasur for partition and separate possession in the suit schedule property. The Court has passed the preliminary decree on 30-9-2006, against the judgment and decree and filed the above appeal. 2. The husband of Smt. Sukanya, that is H.D. Shivakumar has left the village long back and where about were not known till today. 3. The respondents-Baby Shashikala and Baby Bhavya, the daughters of the H.D. Shivakumar and Sukanya as they have no source of income for their day-to-day maintenance. Hence, they have filed a C. Misc. No. 357 of 2006. The Court has granted the maintenance of Rs. 1,750/- as her husband H.D. Shiva Kumar was working as a Teacher at Tarikal, Hunasuru Taluk, H.P.S. School, he has paid maintenance of one or two months and thereafter he left the job and where about were not known till today. 4. Both the appellants and respondents by intervention of elders and well-wishers of both the parties have agreed to share the Schedule properties on the following properties share to Baby Shashikala and Baby Bhavya (minors) represented by mother, natural guardian Smt. Sukanya. a. Item No. 1: Sy. 4. Both the appellants and respondents by intervention of elders and well-wishers of both the parties have agreed to share the Schedule properties on the following properties share to Baby Shashikala and Baby Bhavya (minors) represented by mother, natural guardian Smt. Sukanya. a. Item No. 1: Sy. No. 72 dry land total measuring 3 acres 26 guntas out of this 2 acres of land is given to Sukanya and her daughters. 2 acres in the Western side. (Out of 2 acres of this land 1 acre land given to Sukanya and her children for maintenance case C.Mis.No.357 of 2006 which is pending before the Mysore Family Court, which issued order of attachment warrant in respect of this property to sell). (In O.S.No.2 of 2002, refer item No. II, Sl.No.5) East – Property of Mrs. Rampriya and Mr. Lokesha West – Property of Mr. Subbaiah South – Forest land North – Passage (Oni) b. Item No. 2: Sy. No. 246/2, Wetland total measuring 42 guntas out of this northern side 10 guntas is given to the respondent/Sukanya and her daughters which is situated at Alambadi Village. (In O.S.No.2 of 2002, refer item No. III, Sl.No.2). East – River West – Land belongs to Mr. Karishetty South – Land belongs to Mr. Ramakrishna North – Land belongs to Mr. Girishetty c. Item No. 3: House property No.39 situated at Hosamavinkere Village, K.R. Pet Taluk, Measuring East to West 70 feet, North to South 53 feet consist Mangalore Tiles out of that 1/5th share is given to the respondents consist of Mangalore Tiled and vacant land. (In O.S.No.2 of 2002, refer item No. IV) East – House property of Mrs. Rampriya West – House property of Mr. Lokesha South – House property of Mr. Bettegowda North – Road. d. Item No. 4: Site No.86/6 situated of Bettahalli Village, K.R. Nagar Taluk, Mysore District measuring East to West 20 feet, North to South 84. (In O.S.No.2 of 2002, refer item No. V) East – House of Mr. Subbashetty West – Road South – House of Mr. Kittaiah North – Road 5. The remaining suit schedule properties, the respondents have no right, title, interest and the appellants have no right, interest on the property given to the respondents/Sukanya and her children. 6. (In O.S.No.2 of 2002, refer item No. V) East – House of Mr. Subbashetty West – Road South – House of Mr. Kittaiah North – Road 5. The remaining suit schedule properties, the respondents have no right, title, interest and the appellants have no right, interest on the property given to the respondents/Sukanya and her children. 6. Both the parties have agreed to settle the difference as stated above and also prayed for drawing the final decree on the above said terms and conditions. 7. The appellants have agreed to handover the property given to respondents within a period of 2 weeks or after taking the crop grown on the land in question whichever is earlier. 8. The appellants and respondents agreed to register this compromise decree drawn by the Court, the same will registered in the concerned, Sub-Registrar Office within a period of four months from this date and both will share the expenses. 5. The appellants and Smt. Sukanya, the mother and natural guardian of the respondents 1 and 2, who are present before the Court, admit the terms of compromise and its due execution. 6. It is stated in para 2 of the compromise petition that H.D. Shivakumar, the respondent 3, who is the husband of Smt. Sukanya has left the village long back and his whereabouts are not known. 7. The compromise is in the best interest of the parties and therefore, accepted. 8. Accordingly, the appeal and the cross-objections are disposed off in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.2 of 2002 stands modified in terms of the compromise. Draw up the decree in terms of the compromise.