...... . ...-..... My'. ...-.......m.v-. nmm \..uuIu ur cu-u<nnmAi\A HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGHCG
xdffl
IN '1"lEiE HI{£t"I CGVRT GE' KRRNATAXA AT
mmr: THIS THE 12." DAY 02 JU1»:E,1_;'_:éoe3V:---.f:
am mxvgm ma. msrzcef
Em 2-1n2:r.3.nmA"3:zrrT
"am-mm, .?REP15"t-E{'4.7§B'2¥>1_'_'Z"E'1".'.'{'j'-39"' .__I§iIS-.GE-33:. HOLDER
9 5 ~
Sm. - 5iI3DAIZ~Z~§=4.*I$P;}??A. '
Amm1sTmr1v.I.::_ "GE'FI€*ER,-- .
gxmnatfiflgn' :»::a3~2*f'zz.V mrmc I-WD
nzsraxw. . * ' ,_ '
.. APPELLAN'I'
53?: ss.IVAéi5A,~$§.'.Apvac:atrE FOR
s1a,fi:.s=«..§.2a=s}:4a:ézva;ssv2=.r:r, smv. 3
5 ;3:a'£?m:3"'%sF0 LATE". E samrabmna
mags :39 w
'I§.f,$.I3;"€0.194f6,
'=:"3.?3:I'I'§§.'*1'UJA mam
msam
E€.r'D.LAT}J P SATIEEHADA
EGEB RBGEIT 5:0 YEEKRS
Fif3.I'.*.N0.3.§4./6,
JA E9333
PEYSQRE
.. . RESPQIDEHQTS
man uuum ur !\.HI'(E'll-\II-\I\I-\ fiiuri Lutlgtl or ISAKNATAKA HIGH COURI OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC
,= of the ccxrrupromise entered into between the
and 2"" respeneente who were the ~
139.1 and eefendant 119.1. initially M
defendant was 3"" plaintiff
transposed as defendant No.1:§.__
and decree is challenged v:i.":*-z.'::"i:},*::i.e.v.
as glaint 'A' sehecmlé' Pr:fi:5é$:L%;1fV""'9n1;}'§""'* Edjaint
'A' schedule properfif VA '' house
bearing No. Bangalore
Road in rxaunded on east
by ';we:3t by private
prepertgtt} building and,
south by
__f'E'r fixe. ..... ..sa.ke of convenience, the
vpartiesj referred ta as per their
statu.s'*befA 'i':::i.a.1 Court.
.. respondents filed a. suit: fer
and. separate possession of their
stare in the plant schedule properties.
suit was instituted against one Chinnaiah,
A” Parvathanma , Sathyananda and others .
Aceerding t0 the plaint avexnxents, the
W,’
.. ………–..n.v-. . lav: : u..ug.u§u ur ruuuvnnann rflul-1 COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGR CO
share and 2″‘ defendant had only 1/8 share”
again, out {if the prejperties be1c:nging__;’txi
1″ defendant, the :-3″” defendant 3
adopted. son is having 1/ 2
that there was a parti tiV;_’ share
to defendantsf-4″‘t:;it§i: 7:; did not
get any 3 Rzivattxal parents .
Defandaritt?-ETA :5. ‘ purchased a
propertfi ~ registered sale dead
at . 14 . ‘6.._V19’I-ii” VA”$a.me was registered on
,f’é1v..7.’i:§~7=;~., {me ‘V3′”””aefenaant also contributed
the above said property.
‘ V’»,Theré:§$reV, plaintiffs are also entitled. to
iri,V1;$1aint ‘B’ schedule property.
the above background they filed a.
for partition and separate possession of
24 share and also for rendition of the
W acatmunt in reapecxt of business run unttier the
name and style of 14/ s. Jayanth Enterprises and
6/
EGI-f COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURY OF KARNAYAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO
1!
mother and the son. Accordingly, .'”‘the
cowromae decree was gassed.
10. Challenging the Judgment _ V’
paseed by the Civil Judge,:v;'{3Or’.’Dn’,_}
O.S.}~Io.2-350/93, the present apes-._a1 isimeda
the appellant on the .t1’z.at’~
entered into between and 2
does not bind hizn sirste title
to the A ae1;e§’u1e:A__ I defendants”-1
and 2 Contending
that Aiiuttfiitnout bringing the
awelitantt. Von: laehind his back. have
settled. t1:eV’pr§:pert3?V, which has affected the
xthettiappellant has filed. this appeal.
” _ V “-an earlier occasion, the matter
was; by the anether Bench of this
‘V._Court._ Based. on the Memo said to have beerm
“‘f.1:3,’e§1 by the 1” respendent the jxzdgment and
decree of the Trial Court was set aside and
the matter was remanded. to the trial court for
fresh consideration directing the trial court
to iuplead the appellant herein as a party to
IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HlGHfiC’t5U»!7.{:T KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-GGH C0
the suit. The Jmdgment cf this Court
August 2006 was taken up before
supreme Cc:-uzrt in Civil Appeal 2.I;)s.1’-z8″‘
which appeal came to be jj.<:i:z_
that when the 2"" Cw':-is
the appea1,tha Ha. H1gh"¢§up: hhafild hht have
allewed the Memo
filed anly oonterxiing
that th& g#&éfi%flfi£gagh@§hhhfinhh§ and witnaut
the matter to
this _ .
i24″Ih’tfi#$C§é§kQfound we have heard the
lea;;::.3.exd hyfiéaxing for the parties.
C13; ‘M3. éhivappa, the learned Senior
far the appellant contends
that v_t.he}? AC;:§§ing the 2″‘ plaintiff as 19″‘ defendant
$151: first day after the suit was restored
_VVw§>uld show that such cczmpronzise has been
entered. into betwean the sun and. the. mother to
knock off the prcperty of the appellant.
Accxrarding ta him, the suit was instituted by
V
-IIGH COURT OF KMINATAKA HIGH ‘OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-HGH CI
13
the 1″ respondent along with his deeeesed
sister Reshma claiming partition tre_a}’t’i’nVg.’__:’
plaint A schedule pzcwzrty as an,V_A4_:an¢e{str:-311″
property. When Chinnaiah
grand. parents of the piaintiiffe
share in plant A have
claimed the same V
it was unfair; fm-:__ compromise
the ease and
Farvathazzhufa the appellant
hereihii ‘ _ gplace of Chinnaiah
and the praperty has been
gift:-3:1 A”ueéi.thed by the deceased
A. andivviiéirvathaxmaa in faveur of the
Ofiie further submits when the rights
offizhe. .efig;ellant was known to the respondents
in Mi;3__e.804/02 in all fairness it was for the
xegefiondents to make an ayplicaticarz ta implead.
tine apmllant herein as a party and get the
suit adjudicated on merits. Therefere he
zzeqlzeats the Court ta set aside the cotxggnromise
decree so far as plaint A sczheclule property is
E/..
rnowmevw-..M…_r.» .-H”. =’ . ..
mu COURT or KARNATAKA ‘HIcH”coum or KARNATAXA HIGH COURT or |<AnNArAkA""r'iiE§i;i"E'6{1§tw5%KARNATAKA 'HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA I-IIIIGH ch
24
concerned and remand the matter to the tria;.lt’.__”f_
court for fresh consideration.
14 . Per contra, Mr. Raghupathy .
that the apyellant has no
challenge the corwromise patitilcm sincefi. : V
conpromzise is between the
in resyect of the ‘fa
further: contends vif an
Lindependant rig1:g’t’,”:Vt;i1e Separate
suit for and far
Ptbasess:;.oni” H ‘ – :5. He further
suzamits herein has already
§.nstit:uteSc_1_a ‘l§’i.:1f_.:tV..inAA°.0V§’§V.No.101/2005 on the
at-‘:lF:C:;,’zri.£«A. Chikkaballapur for a
title: and far injuction and in
of pendency of the suit the present
7._. ‘.__appeal_”:.1:3 not maintainable and that the
can get the right to adjudicate in
tlfige suit. Therefore he requeats the Court to
dismiss the appeal.
15. In reply Mr. Sivappa contends that
the suit instituted before the Chikkaballapur
5/,
IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC
herein are to be adjudicated cmly in the s?;i;§–,1:
fiilgd by the 1,” ms9ondent=
18. In the result, the appeal is ‘
The Cozmromise decree passs&:¥¢i»V “i:;3_r_
Judge, Mysore in O. S .No. 350/ . §_.~_OA20’0é
hereby set asidaa. The :is’–
the trial court g’f;;~z: VT”–A.§_”‘:£)n.;3′;i:.VC3′.£.’§1i’VZV::!.tiOn
directing the vA’_’;1’i’:g;glead. the
ayiiellant and
the trial ‘direct<~:–x:.i to
consider inf O' herein only
in ficlndule property.
The appellagnté is .:-__ar:;1:.:.3.”<.-;3..a4é;=c:1. to file the written
".:41;a.te:£mE'+n*§;_OAV' agzd is also given, to the
and 2 to a.me.nc1 their plaadings
3,: "triéy scé7'Oj';1r2f».':'as1re. Parties ta» bear their
'mat.
Sd/’3′
Iudge
Sd/-‘
Judge