|--\
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'I"'ICE K. G0v1NDARAJU_1;;_"U 5 ;_. A'
R.S.A No.l082/2010
BETWEEN:
BORAMMA,
W/O GOWDE GOWDA,
63 YEARS,
KATTIHALLI VILLAGE, V .. -
HASSAN TALUK. ; . QAPPELLANT
(BY SMT. A.R.sHARADAMBA,:'AD§i} O
AND: ____ _,
1. DYAVAMMA,' .
W/O NINGEGOVJDA; , '
SIYEARSO,"-. " .
sHA'1*1'H,:oPPAJ,L§'V1LLAGE,
GANDASE HOBLI; _____ .. »
" ARAs1Ki;R_I:.frALUK -- 573201.
is CrLAN{$RAiviN;A:
'W/"0 NINGOEGOWDA,
59»YEA1*<S..V
. KATITIHALLI VILLAGE,
DUDDVETIOBLI,
2 V. HA-s_sAN TALUK -- 573201.
AAKTNTLAKSHMEGOWDA,
.V _s/0 NINGEGOWDA,
53 YEARS,
KITFANAKERE VILLAGE.
DUDDE HOBLL
HASSAN TALUK --~ 573 201. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY M/S C.R.GOPALA SWAMY, ASSTS. ADVS. FOR
SR1. D.R. NAGARAJA, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS RSA IS PILED UNDER SECTION 10.O”~–O}?lff
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE’—V.. DATED
09.06.2009 PASSED IN RA. 20 /200″/__0N_ TPIE P1LE.oE’TH;E
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN.}V HASSAN, I3ISMI€~S.1_NQ__ ;
THE APPEAL CONFIRMING JUDCMENTAADECPEE»A.t..
DATED 23.12.2006 PASSED IN,O.S. No.2–14/1999. ON’ THE-
FILE OF’ THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR-.DN..} ANDJMPC,
THIS APPEAL COMING “I§QRj”tA_DMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED T_HE;’Ii’O’Ll;Q\/WNG:
Learned the submits that
parties have at “a.l_’Sett1eI”1Ient and accordingly, a
Cornprornlisel’ filed in Court today.
Respondent ‘present before the Court.
.,I_appli’Cati-on is file by the appellant and
.V1’–eSpon*de1″1t: ~ .
The -compromise application reads as under :
..'”The appellant and the 15′ respondent
“.,_h:t;ve entered into a compromise on the
following terms and conditions :
i) As per the decree of the Trial Court the 15′
respondent who was the platntyff has got the
following share in the suit schedule properties
that is 1/3*” share in item No.1 (in _
No.67/2 of Kattehalli village, Dudcla Ham;
Hassan Taluk, rrteasuring 2.11 l
1/ 3*” share in item No.3 {Manga’lore
situated at Kattehalli villagve,’ I:?ux:éddV’~,HdEZ5:VV
Hassan Taluk) and 1/2 Share in” item
survey No.47/1 of Kattehalli» village,
Habli, Hassan Talzilt, ‘O_..28
and the same the 15!
appellate COWT. 1
ii} Zl??1;e””>_4;lf5i:i~- ~ éltolllshxaw gratitude
towards ta: concern shown
by T” her and in
considerationvlp»»oi”Rs.15,000/– is giving
up herxshlare the appellant and is agreeable
vfoir it *drawing.. _ the decree accordinlgy in
., cV&V’fiiociificazion of the decree of the trial court.
” . .ii’i’) iii’ respondent has no objection for
ei1tering”‘.Vthe name of the appellant in the
.c sconce-rsned revenue records by the revenue
– _,ai”ithorities.
iv) Except respondent No.1 no other persons
incluidng her legal representatives have no
right, title and interest over the share of the IS’
respondent and in case of any dispute the 13*
respondent under tkane to resolve the same.
1)} The above compromise entered into betufeenf j”
the appellant and the 1515 respondent «
prejudice to the interest of
respondents and their share’ Add the 2 ll
schedule properties as de_’_1:,r
Court.
In View of this, theysdutbraxitflthett”the.Aappeal may be
disposed of in terms of gtpplication. The
compromise appl’icattort is iplat-‘ed on
3. The appeeill’–“etaif1ds”d_tspo:sed of in terms of the
compromise appiieati.on directed to draw the
decree acnogcfingly. ‘V ”
361/ *2
Judqé