Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1929 (KAR)

K. Ramachandra v. Gowramma

2020-09-30

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT K.Somashekar, J. - R.F.A.No.1645/2013 is filed under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2011 passed in O.S.No.879/2010 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit for partition and permanent injunction. 2. R.F.A.No.1646/2013 is filed under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012 passed in F.D.P.No.35/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, allowing the suit for partition. 3. The parties in both the appeals and the facts involved therein are common. Hence, both these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. In R.F.A.No.1645/2013, IA-1/2020 has been filed on 14.09.2020 under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC duly signed by the appellant K.Ramachandra, respondents 1(b) to 1(e), respondents 2, 3 & 20. However, the sole appellant K.Ramachandra who had duly signed the compromise petition under IA-1/2020, passed away on 15.09.2020. Hence, in order to keep the records trait, another compromise petition has been filed on 25.09.2020, duly signed by the legal representatives of the appellant, respondents 1(b) to 1(e) and respondents 2, 3 & 20. 5. It is submitted at the bar that in order to put an end to the litigation and in order to maintain harmonious relationship between the blood relatives, the compromise has been arrived at. The terms of the compromise petition reads as under: i) That respondent no.20 Nagaraj who is also the husband of deceased respondent no.1(a) Kempamma has already received valuable consideration amount and he has signed as a consenting witness in the registered sale deed dated 19.08.2020 executed in favour of the deceased appellant and hence he has not opted to receive any amount for himself or on behalf of respondent no.1(a) under this compromise petition. ii) That respondents 1(b) to 1(e), 2 & 3 have agreed to receive by way of full and final settlement a sum of Rs.2,70,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Lakhs only) in lieu of their right, claim and share if any in the suit schedule property and accordingly, the appellant has paid the said amount of Rs.2,70,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Lakhs only) to respondents 1(b) to 1(e), 2 & 3 in the following manner: (a) A sum of Rs.16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) is paid by the appellant to respondent no.1(b) Krishnappa by way of Demand Draft bearing No.905662 dated 11.09.2020 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru. (b) A sum of Rs.35,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) is paid by the appellant to respondent no.1(c) Mariyappa by way of Demand Draft bearing No.905660 dated 11.09.2020 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru. (c) A sum of Rs.16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) is paid by the appellant to respondent no.1(d) Smt. Savitramma by way of Demand Draft bearing No.905661 dated 11.09.2020 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru. (d) A sum of Rs.16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) is paid by the appellant to respondent no.1(e) Smt. Manjula by way of Demand Draft bearing No.905663 dated 11.09.2020 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru. (e) A sum of Rs.83,90,000/- (Rupees Eighty Three Lakhs Ninety Thousand only) paid by the appellant to respondent no.2 Smt. Papamma by way of Demand Draft bearing No.905651 dated 08.09.2020 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru. (f) A sum of Rs.1,01,10,000/- (Rupees One Crore One Lakh Ten Thousand only) paid by the appellant to respondent no.3 Smt. Sharadamma by way of Demand Draft bearing No.905650 dated 08.09.2020 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru. iii) That the aforesaid Demand Drafts have been handed over to respondents 1(b) to 1(e), 2 & 3 in the presence of their Advocates at the time of signing the compromise petition. That respondents 1(b) to 1(e), 2, 3 & 20 have acknowledged that they have received a sum of Rs.2,70,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Lakhs only) from the appellant as stated in the preceding clauses. That respondents 1(b) to 1(e), 2, 3 & 20 have acknowledged that they have received a sum of Rs.2,70,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Lakhs only) from the appellant as stated in the preceding clauses. (iv) That since respondents 1(b) to 1(e), 2 & 3 have received the aforesaid sum of Rs.2,70,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Lakhs only) towards full and final settlement of their right, claim, share, etc., if any, they state and declare that they do not claim any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property or any portion thereof. (v) That respondents 1(b) to 1(e), 2, 3 & 20 have declared that appellant is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of the sale deed dated 19.08.2010 registered as document No.3305/2010-11 and respondents 1(b) to 1(e), 2, 3 & 20 have further declared that they will not ever challenge the validity of the said sale deed or every dispute the absolute right, title, interest and possession of the appellant with respect to the suit schedule property. (vi) That respondents 1(b) to 1(e), 2, 3 & 20 have similarly declared and confirmed that the registered sale deed dated 05.10.1972 vide Document No.4209/72-73 executed by respondent no.13 in favour of appellant s vendor Smt. Subbamma with respect to the suit schedule property is legal and valid and they further declare that they will not ever question or dispute the legality and validity of the said sale deed. (vii) That respondents 1(b) to 1(e), 2, 3 & 20 have further agreed that both the aforesaid sale deeds are legally binding upon them. (viii) That respondents 1(b) to 1(e), 2, 3 & 20 have conceded that the appellant shall continue to possess and enjoy the suit schedule property as its absolute owner and forever. 6. The parties to the compromise petition are present in the chambers of their respective advocates and they are identified by their advocates. They state that after having understood the terms of the compromise, they have signed the compromise petition. Hence, I am of the opinion that there is no impediment to record the compromise and dispose of the appeals in terms of the said compromise. 7. Accordingly, IA-1/2020 is allowed. The compromise petition is placed on record. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. Hence, I am of the opinion that there is no impediment to record the compromise and dispose of the appeals in terms of the said compromise. 7. Accordingly, IA-1/2020 is allowed. The compromise petition is placed on record. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree dated 02.06.2011 passed in O.S.No.879/2010 and the order dated 15.12.2012 passed in F.D.P.No.35/2011, are set aside. Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of the compromise petition.