IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
QATEI) THIS THE 16'"! DAY cm FEBRUARY, 2os:>9,..-_ : ~
BEFORE
R.F.A.No.938[g{)05
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHQKZ13;"'HI:~;§:1'1IGE:2§1'v
BETWEEN:
1
Sm'. GOWRAMMA
I3/0 KEMPARAMAIAH
W/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS H
R/A GADIVENKATAPPA GALLI' V. ;
MUSLIM M0HALLA;"T;MAGzi..D1: -~~
BANGALORE
SNYI'. .}AYAMMfi, "'' 1;. s V _ -
B10 KEMPARAM,A_1AHI'A§V ' "
w/0 cH1r;KABYRA?m'V%
AGE!) 40 YEARS, R/A.'F:IO.v14?.3
1473 CRoSs;..KALYANArIAGAR '
'1'. DASARAHALLI, BANG LORE--57
5' " L. .. '" ' APPELLANTS
(B*'£fS1§i«_B GHIQNANDA, ADVOGATE)
AND ' V. "
KEN!.i5£§'E2A.W§.E'{%}§
S/O L;aTEV1ss.#;§I;;'EEvAPPA
4 AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
%t§Eze;p.aRAJ
SIG» KEEEAPARAMAIAH
«. ABOUT 42 YEARS
VENKATESH
2 the respondent No.1, The respondent
and 0f the respondent No. 1. The appellants
flq.152»3.}2(304 for partition and separate possession of
VV each in the suit scheduie property. The matter
in the compromise between the appellants and the
S] O KEMPARAMAJAH
EKGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ALL ARE R/A NDQSQS, 573 MAIN ROAD
KENGERI SATELLITE: TOWN
BANGALORE ~ 560 060
mzs Rm IS FILED U/S 96′ 01:’ AGAIESF ‘
JUDGMENT AND DEGREE m*.9.3.o5 PASSED KN G.S.F§{};1E333/04
on THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL aunc’m;’*(sR. pm, BANGALORE
RURAL DISTRICF, BMJGALORE, 1:>xsMIssm:<;.THE CQMPRGMISE
PETITION FILED U/O 23 RULE 31.05 B'! THE PARFIES AND
ALSO REJECTING THE PIAINT —FIf.El3_ U;,'0 'ya, I~:zJLx2; 11(a) AND
{_d)(')FCPC.
THIS R.F.A co1§,q1.m._ 03″ .;§m,4’IsS;zf§§sI THIS DAY,
coum’ DELWERED Tm’. 1§iGLL.¢wia§G:
This afmpeféal ifi: agéifist judgement and order,
dt.O9.03.2005 1::y Judge (Sr,Dn,,), Bangalore
Rural Districgk sangmg iac).s;N{s;’1523; 2004,
‘1″}:_1._{=: b1ie.f are that the appellant N-35,1
HE}!
resgaondents. A joist czomptmmise petifion was filed under
xxm Rule 3 Code 01’ pmceeum, dividing the suit ;3.:.es’¢e:g:;:;* *
properties into 5 shares and ailotting schedule itfr; Z
appellants I and 2 respectively.
3. The parties propose; but me .Cc:2-;;1*t T.
the parties to the suit pmeeedixlgs a’t i1eg c§tiated
settiezsent, the Trial Court fisefifion
and furthezr rejected the plsixxt Rule 11 (a)
and (d) of the 1:35 reasoning is
that admittedly whess prior to the
commeneement:V’VVeif yin Sectien 6 of the
Hindu Stlccessiefl : the suit in terms of the
compromise ‘i1v%’_()’v’1l]dV’ $3137″ lama as the appellants were
maxjzfied 1_SA3′?’9a }Oe’;.g——pri0r to the eominglinto fsme of the
Ks1z1a.iskL;.VA§11aeIsgi_:i12e1:t;’ -.The Trial Ceurt has taken the considexed
that vesxmot seek palfition as cx)–pa:rceners. As
apgjeilants ..l1sve.Vi}o cause of acijsn, the Trial Court has held
t1:sfeiV4i;i:1:a:e’Vsi1it ‘itself is not msjntainabie, In a suit, which is otherwise
2 msixfisiilsbie, the question of entertaining the oompmmise
V. not arim at all. The ‘i’rial C§o1.u’t has also observed
IQSH.
that the first respondent alongwith his sons can give min;
property t0 the plaintiffs by way of gift. by payijig the , V.
stamp duty towards its registration.
4. Aggricvcd by the afarcsaid older, _
51. Sri Chidananda, the Il’,%EiI’I]€f(i ‘V_(:'{:?-l,.1.I}S€:”1A’f(ZtV’I’ M
submits that the Trial Court ought hawée. the
judgement, order and decree filfléfiffl to him,
there. was no legal impediment f9;v– fI:r: Q16 mcoxfi and
give its stamp of apprgfal u
6, Sri c1;sagn_§n:§;a 1′ notice the Hindu
Succession ._ (Abt 39/ 2005) by virtue of
which the daughtzfififi date of their marriage, arc
givclg 4:-.quaI ” ccéépamcncrs property, as $116: scans
havE§~._ stnbmissioztm, he: has also relied on a
::.._;j;,1dg1nc ::i*i;._rJrf __ti1is4 the case of fiugal& V. Grundappa
35;.-.ifi’:§eaa’_a:tli ma aaherg; Arepotted in 11.11 2007 MR 4790, wherein
the Central Act No,39/2005 and the
-,a=,}§endm::x;t 1990 is resolved by holding that the:
pit):§?ijsiz:=11s3:§0f the former will prevail over the latter.
832$
3?: The Trial Judge cannot be held to be at fault for .<
the order in question. However in View of the subsequeffi; V'
in the law and its ixltczrprctation by this C..€aIiI'!_._
appeal bccemes Imsustaillablc. The :f
progressive legislation intended to cn'$§1;i1::..Vtha.t"'1hcrg
mom disciilnjziation on the grmgxld of gg:f§At3cr;VVTo .¢11*33.1;je_é;cn:icr
jtlsticct and gender equality, the bzmught. it is
pmfitablc to refer to fhC.'.It}CVafi'i"»i:I{)TtifiI}S_ V reported
judgment, which are V. ' ' '
"42 'I'h11,s2,**v'n emf .ge;£tled proposition,
of Iirgzzr Caurt and also by
this i::':;u'-rgin f].l'.§€:;:.A:V.£§,fi3'?'é',':¥:.1."1',v?}*'l;II'DTletZ¥ cases; I am. of
the l)"£.81L? "Z.h£1'£ ;§t;fi;i$–i§§n. of Sedion 5-Afd) of the
_ _ Ifljzfkataka Act, 1990 is repugnant to
« _'i;h:¢.2 ofé(105 rmd as the Cen1ra.fAc1 is
"pf time, it will prevail over the State
" . Exit i(V)'ii:';1;t:i:. the provisicon of Section 6-A(d) of
yihe is reapugnam' or to the Cen1n1IAct in
A 30 " fgfif as position of mmvied is
. _ V Enemyenzeci In ather words; cm a result of
'bsiibstihxtien {sf Section. 6 of the Pn'n,cipIe Act by
may of the C3en2raIAmertd1nentAd of 200.5, the
State Act, which is eaflier int pcrint emf time, cxmrzat
have any efiedw Supremacy of the parliament;
HE}!
therefore renders Seciion 6~A[d) of the Kamzziaka
Amendmentdcta I990, voici
491 In view of the aforesaid pasiiien of law, in softy' as
the pending matters are oomremeotl be it suit er V
appeal, the daange ejfecfied by the Centml A§;i¥of A
2005 wiil have to be note of and « A
respect of the pending pr0oeedi%iVgs,,b"2P'.e
Amendment Act of 2005 , "
“UL af 9′ 9.2005 wifi have to Q;-gapfieci; -‘.’. V’ V
3. Thus, in the wake of mg radicfali i1:n..thu::,.1_§:gi,%§}afion
and the unmistakable the Central
Amendment Act vis~é–vi’s;– the Act, the
judgement and Set aside and
aqzcoxtlingly it is to graat the
decree based (3%; in this appeal. The
respondents are unzmpmscntcd. The
possibility of fiifi the suit achcdulc pmpertics
to ‘the: 333:3 cannet be ruled out. It
. is ‘ the respondent and the third’ pa;t’t1e’ :3, if
am heard in the matter before passing any
1{;:;é1’¢;’..g:;..%:ne joi:i.¢__€éompmmisc petition, The matter is remanded to
V’ with a ciizecttion to dispose of the joint compmmisc
fig)-I
petition taking into accxtmnt the I~¥i11du S1:cee:sSion A’
Act, 2005, Act No.39] 2005 and the judgment of T’
Sugalahai (supra) after putting the mspondfintsiifngiv _
aifording them an oppommity of heari3}g_in the. – ‘
9. Appeal is allowed in the abovzgffjérms. “Na:€>r;z1c1*v §a$ to
costs.
10. Oifice is direcsad to mg {he M31 Czzmrt
forthwith .
bi?!’