High Court Karnataka High Court

H C Raghuram Reddy vs H C Shekaran on 16 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
H C Raghuram Reddy vs H C Shekaran on 16 September, 2010
Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED waxs THE 16" may or SEPTEMBER, 2o;G[:_

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE M. JUSTICE K:L. MA§5GfiArHf  V_ 

AND

wax HON'BLE MR. JUS$ICE B MANOH$R . jg"

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL fi¢{:§g/2b04 (bA§)

. %C/w

 

REGULAR FIRST AQPEAL ho 326/2604 (PAR)
BETWEEN? _[  §; . g \u$  A *"»m,

RFA No.78égg§g_ "'

H.C.Raghuram Réddy"$/c iate
H.M.Chinnappa Reddy, 50 years,
Presently R/at Nc.4/i,f
Chinnappanafialli-village,
_K.R.Pu¢am=Hobxi,A '
fisangaiéréusauth Téfi'

Sinée.de¢easéa by L.Rs.

 '1. Savi€hrafifia w/o lae 3.6.

_ Raghuxama Reddy, 52 years,

%;2§;a;a,Ma1a d/o late H.C.

j Raghfirama Raddy, w/o N.
'QCSxinivasa Reddy, 32 years,

E"VVRfat No.770, II Main,

_'C~B1ock, A.E.C.S.LayGut,
'Kunda1ahalli, Bangalore.

{y,



3.

4.

No.1,
Sri.
Chinnappanahalli,
Bangalore~37.

AND:

1.

“fiafigalfireg

‘3

R.Srinivas s/o late H.C.
Raghurama Reddy, 30 years,

R.Lokesh 5/o late H.C.

Raghurama Reddy, 28 years,

3 & 4 are R/at No.4/1,
Marathi Layout,

(By Advocate Sri.E.S.Indireshf

H.C.Shekaran s/o laté,’ V i ‘g , _
H.M.Chinnappa Reddy, 46 years} “ifi’
R/at Opposite £0 M§ramma_ a”– ”
Temple, Hoofli;#i11agé,V V
MahadevapfiféaP0st,’V’_’_
Krishnarajapflfiamuflobli,u”
Bangalore.SQutK;TqL,a ‘

Syed Ibrahim sfQflSyed~Adam,
36 years} R/at N¢.28i5,
12″‘Main,”‘D’wCroSsf
Rajajinagar’II_Stage,

‘1B1bia£ée§é*d}p Syed Iqbal

Ah¢ed w/¢.Syéd Javeed Pasha,

24.years,,Rfat No.28l5,
12fl°Méip, ‘D’ Cross,

,*Rajajinagar II Stage,
,”Bénga1ore.

L–K:iS£al ?rojects (India)

pét. Ltd., No.1, mm Cross,

_”2§” Main, BTM II stage,
V Bangalore~76.

T?”

.,V,A2PEL§Ax%s

‘3
.3

Rfby its Joint Managing
Director Mr.Roy C.J. .. RES?ONDENTS

(Advocate Sri.S.N.Ashwathnarayana for Rr@)aV,
(Advocate Sri.C.G.Gopalaswamy for R-2 go 4)L’a

REA No.826/04:

BETWEEN:

H.C.Shekaran sic late V ,

H.M.Chinnappa Reddy, 45 yeags,

R/at $0.140, Opposite to Mafamma

Temple, Hoodi village, R’ –

Mahadevapura Post, “_ .

Krishnarajapuram Hobli}_’

Bangalore South Tq. T a ~ ,_*_;V;

Bangalore. .= Zww-j= -_y_ j.fA” APPELLANT

(By Advqqate53:1;S;fi,Asyetfiaaafayana)

H.C.Raghuram®Reddyaé[dylate
H.M.Chinnappa Rédfly,.6O years,
R/o No,770} ‘C’ Eldckf”

V2m’Maifi RoadfWA}E.C.S.Layout,
” ‘K1;nda_i:ak;a3,1._i, 11111 ~ ”
Axopp: to Brrake Fields,

Bangai9fe§37, a

Siaca daadahY}L.Rs.

~~af.;LSavith:amma w/o lae H.C.

a”AVaRaghurama Reddy, 48 years,

K 23Srinivasa Raddy s/o late H.C.
°=.V Raghurama Reddy, 30 years,

</'V'

-1

3,Lokesh Raddy s/0 late H.C.
Raghurama Reddy, 28 years,

4. Mala w/o Srinivasa, 32 years,

All are R/at No.770, 11 Main,
C-Block, 2″ Main Road,
A.E.C.S.Layout,

Kundalahalli,

Opp: to Brrok Fields, d -_ ,t”.: -;; ‘a
Bangalore. 5V3 to 2 ;J”3E$POfiDEN?S

(By Advocate Sri.E.S.Iadiresh)

These two Regular First Appéals are filed under
Sec.96 of cpc against the judgment and decree dated
29.11.2003 paévsejd”in’;o’._s.zqe;V.549’2’/3.992 on the file
of the xx Add; ‘city tiv;1_3ndge, Bangalore City,
partly decreeifig the fsaitf for partition and

separate;poaéeasiofi}. ‘x
Thesé«Vtwo’_fifipéala”aare coming on for final
hearing this _day;e”MANJUNATH J. delivered the

following: _ vi –

ii * ‘<.mg U D G M E N T

Vidyfiesai two appeals are preferred by the

afipallaatafdbaifig aggrieved by the judgment and

Videcreeapassed in O.S.No.6497/1992 on the file of xx

'Wufifid&l{ City Civil Judge, Bangalore dated 29.11.2003.

épfiailaht in REA No*789/2004 was the plaintiff

fa

5

before the court below. Appellant in RFA
No.826/2004 was the defendant before the” trial
court. Therefore, these two appeals ate olehbed

together.

2. During the pendency of this~appeelU’a§§ellant’

Raghurama Reddy died. Hisu legal Vreotesentetivée
are brought on record. Iikefterudeddteesing the
arguments at length, at the instance of the court,
parties have settledpi:the§%’;_#?e§ete amicably.
Accordingly thee haye filed ooettofiise petition.

3_ Comfironiisév filed by the L.Rs. of

Raghuram aéaay and also by the defendant Shekaran.

vfhey ate present before the court. They admit the

execotion of the compromise petition. It is also

signeflpfh§dfthel respective advocates. Learned

ls&Advocates hate identified their respective parties.

»_Comp£omise petition is taken on record.

G

4. In View of the settlement arrived at between
the parties, these two appeals are dispeeed. of.

Judgment and decree passed in “on

29.11.2003 by the xx Addl. City wfiivii 4Ju¢ge,7,

Bangalore, we direct the Regiaustz-ytéttfifi-et»éi;§ae’zfiadi.£.ied’*–

decree in terms of the com’pr_.miVéeV_ _
% Séfaé
§e§ge

Sfifé
3u£§e

“*,e»f*.E/210910