IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 218'? DAY or SEPTEMBER
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE»A}1.BILLAP§A: A
R.S.A.NO.301 OF 2096 A A A
BETWEEN: A "
Basavannachar
S/0 late Mallarma Char
Aged 55 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/0 Raghavapura Village H v
Begur Hobli, Gundlyrptzt Taluk ' - _ _
Dist. Chamraj Nag'ar.'§,-'
(By Sri. Acivl)
AND: A A
Puttabasappa .
.....
1 .. A ‘Srrxrt: .
W3/.0″-Late-Pu f;ta.E_3a’Sappa
Age 81A’yearS
‘Smt. Siddamnla
” 4 .L__ateVVPuttabasappa
:9’ _
Puttaswam appa
* .. V “/’0 late Puttabasappa
L1//.
Mallarmachar, dead by LRs VA ii
6.
Age 60 years.
H.P.Basvaranjappa
S/0 Late Puitabasappa
Major, 58 years.
. H. P. Lingaraj appa
S/0 Late puttabasappa
56 years.
A11 are R/0 I’-Iasaguli Village V
Tq. Gundlupet — 571 111.
Dist. Chamaraja Nagary.
Kamalamma 1 _–
W/0 Mallanachar . ‘
95 years i V ‘
R/0 Raghayapuira1i{i_1a1ge’ ~ V
Begur Hébli, ” 1 ..
Gundiupet + ’57i1ei’v.11:f1′;i
Gundlupet — 1.151.
. _Dist. Qharitaraj Nagar. A.
L’ _Mah’a(iVev.ap.p “‘ V
8/ O ..Maiiya.pp . V
55*years A
R/0 HasaguIyiflvillage
IGund1upet Tq. « 571 1 1 1.
-..Charnaraj.. Nagar Dist.
; .Sar0jarhma
. “D/01\/iallannachar
__ ‘ “?0—- years
|\J
. Secretary of PLD ”
(sgéisrij P.
R/0 Kothalavadi
Harave I-Iobli
Chamaraja Nagar (Tq) & (Dist) -571 313.
10.Yashodamma
D / 0 Mallannachar
67 years.
R/0 Haliare Viliage.
Hulla Halli Hobli,
Nanjangud Tq. — 571 301.
Mysore Dist.
11.Smt. Sharadamma
D/0 Late Mailannachar
62 years
Raghavapur Village. 1
Gundlupet Tq. W f5?”‘l, ll 1::
Chamaraj N agar “–{Dis_j:’tV)
.’.., ‘
12.Subbam.manni”~,
D/0 Late Mallvalimfaehéirl I
58 years –_ ‘ V * -.
R/0 Raghavapur Village».
Gundlupet ‘rq~.,– “537 IV’ 111, ”
Chamaraj Nagaf Dist.
Sid,’ Vil.Rarig–araju_Assts. for R1 to R5
*=i€=!¢=l¢**
i V ‘iriais’R.s.A. is filed U/S of 100 of
“-..’~..judgme:3t and decree
._vv”‘-R:A.Ne.l”£/2003 on the file of th
dismissing
dated
L//,..
CFC, against the
19.11.2005 passed
e Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.)
the appeal and confirming the
…Resp0r1dents
ya Reddy 8: Deshraj, Advs. for R5.
: Sri. ixenkate-msowda Adv. for R9, R10 & R12.)
judgment and decree dated 31.10.2002 passed in
O.S.No.188/92 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. D11.) &
JMF’C.. Gundlupet..
This jR.S.A. coming on for admission this
deiivered the foliowingv
JUnGMEN1_f’
The appellant, the Respondent
10, 11 and 12 are present before X .
2. The Respondent.s;..¢_.’1.. tof 4§.,A3§1*ey_vrTe’presented by GPA
holder. the respondent No.5, A H
3. is”1’r’ep1’esez1ted by GPA holder,
the appeilarlt. 0′ ‘ 0
4. The dead and represented by LRS
1 1″ E1nd….l2.
. Respo1’r_dent Nos? 87; 8 are deleted.
0′ have filed compromise petition under
0rder 3″ofCPC, which reads as under:
31/
1. The plaintiff/ respondents filed suit for specific-‘–.__
performance in O.S.100/I982 which
renumbered as O.S.273/1989 subseque_r_i::tiy -1-
was renumbered as O.S.No.188/1992.ib.eVfore
Civil Judge (Jr. on.) & LIMFC4.sunddiiipe_iiie5i~’
which was decreed directing’ to:ie§{ecL1te…t11e”
sale deed of Sy.No.212 ah«–.eXtent._of 4
guntas, which was confir1ne’d_in
before Civil Judge'{Sr. I*Jn.J” Chamarajaniagara
which are subject’ ‘ rnatter of –._ReguIar
Second Appeal 30 «. 2″
2. Srmt. Karnai..ainv1na.iWV;7.o”Mai_1an11achar was also
ownverwjvo’f._ti1e.::_1an.d” who has not
signed’ the land, but both
courts h-axi/e’erred.’everi«.directing to defendants
to exectited the:reg1:.s_ter”ed sale deed to the entire
extent of siiitiansd, which is totally error of
lJudt–hvA’i1=parties amicably compromised the
avs’V’the Plantiffs LRs respondents 1 to 5
AA agreed; that they have no claim for entire
.e>{t_ent of 4 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.212, but
flihey are ready to restrict their prayer of suit to
“only to the extent of 2 acres 11 guntas and
they have no claim more than above stated
extent to 2 acres 11 guntas of land situated at
Hasaguli Village, Taluk Gundlupet even in
future neither Plantiffs Lrs nor and their leg.a”l”–.T
representatives also no have no right of
over remaining 2 acres 1 1 guntas.
4. The defendant/appellant herei’n’~alsoL to
execute the registered sa1e:”:.dee_’dr~’lonly
extent of 2 acres 11 gulraas 0VfA],andV at’vVHos,gi,11i_:’§
Village in Sy.N0.2l2 ~ind”i1orthEern
side A schedule land, Sl:1’oi7crr1;’jg3.tj’s1§etCh’beioar.
East : Mahadefafipa land
West : Govt. Vonriwh. if V I ‘V
North : v _
South : delf’endantseVovf1″i.lrenfiairiing 2 acres 11
guntas land inSy.2 A l
Maleyappa
2 — 11 g A Mahadevappa
” . ” – and Revanna’s
A D_e°endants l 8: 2 Sy.No.2l 1
.}?laint:i–f:1″‘s {Rs agreed that as per
of sale they have not cleared the
Bank loan of Rs.10,032/– and not paid
Rsl3§OOO/– h3()rtgage to 4*” defenda11t.’s
V.
Mahadevappa so for, though it was condition-.__
of agreement of sale, Original plaintiff had
only Rs.8,OOO/V advance + 1,000/»
F
Thousand onlylaccording their _
attorneys own contention in:’e’\’fi(ier1c’ein«sttit_._ V
6. Hence, the plaintiff has to’~..p”ay 3
consideration amount oii._’;Rs.12;25o/»–s
appellant as per,’above—-compromise”toV-the
extent of 2 Acre, eAgAm’1%tas;””t};ere,_after the
defendant-appellant”ii;/ill deed to
the extent”oj:fL:V1’2 acre schedule
above “iit:”.para 5 land, this
umu_snui}xfiy_fidPfifinsfis_§ay RSQHLZSO/»
consideration «deducting
Rs.4.O0O/V adivanced remaining
Rs.10/168/’ _d€pos’iteC1 «mg. »tr,il’al’~”‘llvcourt to be
withdrawn ‘ltl’1f’.V a}dlp”e–Ila_nHt._v excess arnoimt
Rs.2;2l8/’gvllltotierefunded to respondents
.herein,”‘%Vap’;5eIlant: has to redeem
of land and execute the
reg.iste’red salemdeed within with in two
{rnofiths,%~e
V
7. If the
plaintiffs LRs failed to pay the a1″11oL1r1.t~.,_»
they wiii loose ali rights even to this 2
1 1 Guntas.
registration other stamp duty
deed.
terms
sale.
10. With
The Plaintiffs LRs oniy h:«we._4to
éflh ‘
e’iia.€’geS of ‘”s atiet’ if
If the plaintiffs LRs faiIed__to-eornplyhhtiie
they Wiil Iosehthe ri fhtvt’o’fy_a,t¥reenient of
t¢f~m;?._ it V heippellant and
respon<?Ien_ts_in"–thi"s5jjRSApheiye' entered in to
compromise. 31;; rHe"n.c'e-.,
to pass order
acoord«_'i11g.Vtelftthe ._o'o1jriprorr1ise petition in the
interest.4'ofji1s.tiCe a,ri'd. ,_eciuJ'.ty.
7. ‘appellant;-Vthemfiespondent No.5, the Respondents
iogii Vjami :2
are present before the Court admit the
terms ofthe’ coinpromise and its due execution.
Thez’R:espondents 1 to 4 are represented by GPA
H. V’ ” – _ -~ _hoI’der,–.. Re
spondent No.5 and he admits the terms of
V..
9
Compromise and its due execution on behalf ofg the
Respondents I to 4.
9. The Respondent No.9 is represented T’
the appellant and he admits the ‘£(3i:*.II1S:;”‘G}C:
behalf of the Respondent No.9.
10. The compromise 1’s”i.r_1 thel’h’eset;.in:’t”e.1f.est ofthle parties
and therefore, accepted.
11. The learned the submit that the
appeal may be_disposed.;:of, in°tei*rIis-.of V_tl31e compromise.
12. Accordingly,’ “is disposed of, in terms of
compromise.’ The j’udgm.e’ntAanVd’ decrees passed by Trial Court
Appellate”””Court in O.S.N0.188/92 and
‘modified in terms of the Compromise.
1uDraw up.thle’ decreeixd terms of the compromise.
Sd/-‘-.
Judge