IN THE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNTAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 26"' mw or ocmaER%2oa9 Q
PRESEW A k x ' J
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE %
THE H()N'BLE MR.JUsT1(%EL.NARm%fANA3wAMY
ORIGH\IAI4:--.SI'£)AE}XB}4E;,2%.L'322008
% % A: Misc. ;CVL';'v8 1€4.0!2Q(3é9
. %
V og:a'3n~:A.11 S'i{3E':APPE;AL No.13/2003
BE'1"WEEN : %' %
1, '§ S;IZ1S RSHANKAR
& S5353 S'.N RAM2's;'REE)DY
3 AGEIJVABOUT 42 YEARS
N03,
- X k%As§mKT1TL%FARM ROAD,
B'3€'P»'KSANDRA¢
BANGALORE W 360 0941
' :2; ' s1\§z'iT KESHWAMMA
% L &%%w;0 NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT OOLAVADI VILLAQ,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT. %
[By Sri H S Ramammhy andsri RBhaar;na1§@.g¢v%; 2 J g E
AND
SRISNRAMAREDDY '.
S,/0 LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 _
RESIDING AT NO.291Z}A_z'2, L 1 k '
5'?" CROSS, UAS LAYOIff,V.VV 1 ~
BANGALORE +«j:'~50 094. % RESPONDENT
Adv]
TH’1S- Af.PPEA;L IS’~FII,E{)_”LTNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
HIGH7.CGL*R.T ,mT,%%%2J9%e1″%AGA1NsT THE JUDGEMENT AND
DEGREE DA’r§D ‘j_24;€}–3§2€}E}8 PASSED BY THE SINGLE
JUDGE, INIQS :s:%:);2;2o:)%:? AND ETCW
_:_:_ misc; mm] ‘3:40si2′:909
k% nsI”0§5;;:ar0″. ,1.3;2oo8
&> §;N0’1fH?;;§’ APPLICMTS
‘i3rti H S Ramanxurthy and Sri R Bhaérinath, Adv]
«[*
SR1 S N RAMA REDDY RES?QN{)EN’I’
{By Sri G Papi Reédy, Adv]
3. Submission is gated. Permitted, ~is
perxnitted to carry out the correction to the cause. 4.
4. The Testamentary Origigala
nunlbered after the reSp0nde:3Vt”svL:’EV
have been executed by to be
the paternal unclg’ of %§£\vV..éra§d»ihther of the
first appellalfl: faiheffsiw VVfi1’e:Afaiher of the second
appellant?” respondent – the person
seeking_f0r_ prabaiing “ih é ‘wili’;._ ‘ ‘
_ 5a. LThté”1’:::$’p0z§”de1.fi mught ii}: probating the wiil dated
” V. ‘3Q&”L’E\;iaféi1( Sfiiéfo have been executed by Thippa Raddy,
‘tifiAp:§¥§e;jj’aZV.’V;2z§eie cf the respondenfg which was opposed by
V VV _ ihe firesefzi afipellants and the testator ixxciéentaily being to be
ggjaxzvé’-fafiiaf ef the first appeflant 0;} his father’s side and
_ fifths second appellant
6. It was due to the opposition to the gram
proceedings had been ccmveried £0 a testam::nté;§’f;£VVC};A?i:gi.11al[‘ s’uit
and the matter went to trial and u]’ti13;a.{é;I§;,’4’-:h.§§_ st2£t’~~h:s@..1»-gain ‘
decreed.
7. Aggrieved the de<.:V19éSe, v the present
appeai by the defendants H:'_:f; 'tlFA1_§
8. HaV§§3_gV farnéiy relationship existing
a1120ng~’i;hé’p§§iies,éV’}f: wa;<;'.séfiggcA$i;éCi' this court, that the parties
insteadV €':f'}itigati§1g'V':_a1fiG:*fg'st: illemseives 3.136 pariiciiiarly, after
having. n01:ié€;d that éertéizz eriminai proceedings, had aiscs
– .–…,;;;;*’§p;§é§–f’;;p” agzzijngvvifié parties, the parties wage advised and
A”-*;§;):.11;:’eé§ic.ééi;.,Vf0f.T”VV’$¢ttling 1:133 matter amicabiy father than is keep
}itig fi:ting’:bef<3re the ccnzrt and for such purpase, wherz a request
K ..§11a{3é to them by this court initiaiiy 033 11.9.2009 and again
sgggsgqaanrgy an 21.10.2009 and on 23.10.2009. the parties mg
'4 iime ané with the aid arid advice of the respective counsel, is.
Mfg H.S.Rama Marthy and R.Bad;inath, app¢ariln'gl:'~;he
appellants and Sri G.Papi Raddy appearing _fc23flV_lt:l;¢; ";§g§fis3a:iai1t,V l»_
we are very pleased to note that the l'
satisfactory settlement of all djspuies Vlamozzgéfii 'tag gfiariies; "
inclading the present appeal-
9, A Joint MemQVV_raadia’g_llafa u’r1d2eaV..’isl-Vplacad before this
COLIITI
:’1_’he, ..fi’lati this appeal 1:0 set aside the
Judgmeraaad (lea:’laé.:daléd:’4233,2008 in T.().S.Ne.2f2{)07 and
sucl1:0*-£h_er faliafa.’ “;i”}3alV’saa0nd appellant is formal party to these
V’ ..prc.aéad.ings~-and Shela aid aged and not in position is man’: and
aad. be dispensed to appear before this l~I0n’b}e
Caart pazfaiijgalljl} and :0 file this joint memo. After the filing of
the “aljljpeai the matter befween the parties satfleé aaé
apgyaiiaht “is hereby with draw tha above appeal ané respoadant is
–a_g:£’aéé is with draw all the cévilfcriminal cases pendiag bafare
c<:vn.cemad aaurts wit}: eat any terms and conditiéms.
&/ aaaa
suggestéd in the Joim; Memo,
appea} zmd are fiat standing on the iegai effect of decreeiz3~g_ zrfthe
suit, but have eves; othemfise resolving the §iSputCS'.._8§§3}V§3i}4£2; »fi3f3'iY1
in the present appeal in an amicable manner am!' thgmibre,-..in V'
substitution of the judgment and
ms 252007, the settlement in t§;s2néV{3f"fi1em0tV:r'£3;}t m;»a¢a-t "
and the appeal and suit disposed Laiccgrdihglfit I' V}
12. We also not§Cé_t.’fl1§atV.§’tVlje indicates that the
existing/other:.cé:}i:1/§;2.riI1iina1ttéasesttiéetweeig’ the parties are also
being ‘sfesz)_l*;é:n{¥’ r;e,;}–si__: tem1«i_fi3t¢d. in terms of the settiement to the
s;atisfacti;0n4_0f thé”pzifties;”‘–~..,. 4’ V
‘I3, Wen’ giéce cm recerd our apprcsciation 0f the very
‘ respsinvsg by the father and son due and we overlook the
gszfiséncvet eff Véeccnd appellant befere the court in perscm as is
t»
10
If the Gperatinn of the provisions of Secticzz_ 6f}”-..$I1:::i31d
result in 3. refund in favour of the appeHaz;is,_.A*1:Z:1e
directed to draw a cheque in the nayrxe’ cf the: andk’ ‘ 1. a
hand over the same through the c0u2: s¢;__l.::—_TV A. 3
in View of the disposa;~%g;1*%%%;he mm 1Va;§’;aéé;§;”M£§cACvI.’
8140/2809 does not sur’fv-fife 1Esfr”§3§i1é:éi::iiV;é:ra,_ti0n a§§é siéansequently
Misc»Cv1. 8140,2009 is dVi§;fiiA:s3c§dp ‘
fizz