BangaJO're_~"56Qv._Q8S;"
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT _
DATED THIS THE 27"" DAY OF DECE§'€.f3'g.g3:,"-2:(}OA9 " E-V
BEFORE f:
THE HOl\%'B:,E MR.J.GE3fICE"Sx.'ABDUi;"'t'Q§.i§}:4EER_T§ .
REGULAR FIRS'F..APP«E'Ai__'VAf'€'{g.5iE~.9. OF 2Vo'Oi?(mR)
BETWEEN I
1. K.vishwar;a,t't:-, _ 1 .
S/O latte'-..i<.;5§$wa~tha_na.rayg*:r;i_; .
Aged5abOut"SEE-.yeérfiS«,_" ..
R/a No~fi2e9«:A.;.,Ch;:g_:<'afn~za (garden,
S3'hé3"hi»._56Q ' -
2. K,Aswathram * = Transposed R1 as
S/O fate KAswatfien'aray.an;'v_ Appeiiant No.2 by
Aged abo;%t61__. yearé, V the Permission
[\_é"oV.'3.28, v-f;_"*'~ "c_:--.t'_{i.- of the Court
3*'? sv:,am,, 'Ph.a.se;._ ' dated 16.22.2909
Ba r1'a_sh an"i< a %'i~. 3 '*7. Sta ge,
...APPELLANTS
Sr; B.R:§'C'--rag--ox}vtié', Ativocate}
'~ . O, $"w_a:f'hhai'a'%<:shmi
--.TW./ot Mfirahalad,
Agu€'C§"'a'b'{)t,!t 59 yearg,
No.85, LakS§1ma:2a Thota,
V[\iext to Siiicoyz English School,
Near Soudamlm Choultry,
Konanakunte, Bangalore.
2. Ksaraswathl, W/o NagabhLJSha.o.,,
Aged about 55 years, ' '
No.14, 3" Cross,
Link Road, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore M 560 003. V .
Aged about 57 years, _ ' _
Door No.2875, 8"'l"--€ross, j.
'Punyakolti Nilaya' '
Kumaraswa-my L,ay'ou--t.,.f
3. K.Sharadhamma,, W/o D_,.GxopaI"a.i,ah, A Q'
Bangalqref.'
.4. K. La\}ai<:;:rfi.aV'r, 'S/ojullafte .'Asm}§at'haoa raya rl,
A,i}e.d ,abouf"1:3lQs.vea rs; 'V
£40,209; £'p,|.,osta,iVrs,,ChlE<l<_anna Ga rd en,
Svlilankara ':3'-a,ra,rr},, '
Bangalore'
5 . _ K . K u I'n.a'r,
.;,:s/o~ late K';Asl{g(_a:,.%':a:1al'ayan,
'Aged about 50 years,
'V No.'2U9_,"*LJ_pstairs, Chikkanna Garcéen,
V';§hfa.r1l<VIII""vCity.'CiviifjidGreet':Barndaloigevfa'The 1" appellant
was the apailtne 2"" appellant was
the v1V?'i...reseion;ci~e;:i1.t. oth--eryrespondents are the other
,I’_,,_ £’rié1′..c0:;r:’ j
defenda’–nts.infhe:’said-.slj–it; The said suit was filee by the»
plaintifffor ,;3art.it4i0n” separate possession of the suit
sC«E{ede~le propeVU_?_$.-» The Court below dismissed the said
0 jsukit «3isgals:0″~~the cohnected suit OtS.N0.2816/1997 filed by
“~.t’h.e’ a’p’;§_e.¥.laija€is herein. Respoetlents 3 8;. 4- have been
de’leteda as no relief has been clairned against them in this
“»x”appeal
2. Learned Counsel aepearing for the parties submits
that the matter has been ainicably settled between the
it
parties. They have filed an application
Rule 3 mm Section 151 of CPC report~ih.gA4_:’:’thVe~l.::te.;n1s’
settlement which are as under:i;
” The appellants–.,§’i’z_.p, i;{.\/__is’hvA\ia_ha’tli'””and
K.Aswathararn _ andp.___iu’:-.res;3_orndlezetsppp Vpvvhamely
Sent./Aswatha L;a.l”<~shn<ifi (iresp.o'nId"eh_t ¥\lo.2),K.La\/a
Kumar (respondlentl _«73.evt§.AA.'.ji4,li.'_l_<.usha Kumar
(responr_i:en_t' state as
.,:'}o.s'ié$io,:i'5o'2o l/§tf.,,»r';999 is filed by
partition and separate
poissleissionwof su'i-trsicheduie property, viz', old
.,No.&43R6,,_:Vnev\}v" measuring East to West 40
f_e:e*:,__and""£\lo«–rth' to south 73 3/2. feet: bounded by
V _Veast.t,VAlV\J'ahjappa's house, West:Yagnava§i<a Hostel,
.Aswathan's house and
Soutixfiovernmeht Road, situated at Chikkahna
it ..t3'arderi, Shankara Puram, Bahgaloi*e~56O 804,
'_ claiming 1,/'7""' share eaeh. That suit is dismissed.
Against the Judgment 8: decree, the plaintiff has
filed the appeal in RFA nO.6-49 OF 2807.
K" ,
(ii) Sri K.Aswatharam and Sr:
appellants have filed the suit O.S.i\io;.28’_1~.6l’ l
1997 against (1) Sri. Lava:”r<'t.m3Aar,'_' 'S".ri4.Kti=s'_i'.0.a if
Kuma r, (3)COfT!lTllSSlOi'l€i', 'Ba F-fg a.l-are».iVi'a n'a{ja.Arai.a_'
Palike and (4) Smt.Aswathal"a.l<'s*hmi,tVft}~§V.;;iaftiti';0nVl
of suit schedule pro§3e,ff~.y clair*m'ngt.t:i:/4*: share
each as per the Will VAexefiti.tedd'_by {*n0the.r'§ of the
plaintiffs and Vf't9_.r.:"deelar2.atVi.di't:~ntjt._to change the
Khatia of the sLiitV:l's»ehe__dti¥le–';3.i;d'i5..eVrt'y i.e., h0%..3S€
propet.t»y@:'b'Vtaariizig at 3"" cross,
Ch i3l<«i<a"n_n a'rd:e.n", ha nfl;_<a rap U ram , Ba ng al 0 re-
sso»..Qd~<iV;.,:,nte.;i_stnfi'ng- itfastiiito West 40 feet and
i\lottl'i'-to S'nOi.ith<"i?_3 '/2. feet and counter Claim,
defendant entitled to 1/7""
shazjel as decreed. The suit filed by the
p.laintiff.,i_:s”‘dismissed. Against that Judgment 8:
A ;,,A>eC”ree, tliewaipeellants have filed the appeal in
_ “RQF’A_”‘¥\lla.’429 OF 2009.
..{ii’i).§adtn the eeit \/i:»:., O.Stl’io.2816 of 3,997 and
” .,{;i1;s.ito.1so2o of 3,999 are clubbed and Common
Judgement was passed on 01.02.2007,
dismissing the suit O.S.£\lo,2816 of 1997 and
O.S.£\l0.15020 of 3.999 and allowing cross
obgection filed by the 4″‘ defendant
.l
‘at
i
Smt.Aswathalal<.sl"inii declaring that;~~-s.?}e.__'__'".i';r..,
entitled to E/7"" share as per the Wi'l«'l,_" M
the Judgement & Decree_,R.FA V
and RI'-"A %\Jo.429 of 2009,14arei,f?le'd_beforeV:'ts.h'is:;_'
Hon'ble Court.
(iv) In RFA No.6»49 Ao.§.”}:»oo’t?.,_.}’rviémdis filed for
deleting rE3SVl:)(.)..%Vf}’d’€%F”?V’tSit.l’l\J’O,’3iT’~i§ti1d 4, viz.,
Smt.l
.:j_:{f’ 399? dated O:M32.2007 does not survive in
” favour of the -41″ defendant viz.,
Smt.Aswathala£<shrni.
(vi) The suit schedule property has come-to the
share of the appellants and the respondents
ll
father Sri.K.\/Ashwathanarayan by settrlesh_eh__tt-4’i’;r’1:”
the partition dated 12.52.1945. Fu’.rt’her-athat»V_v_” A’
there was partition bety\:.ee_r1 A;s”vyath’_a.:1″”rand
Aswathaharayaru on
schedule property has Corhetrto hsjhare
father of the appev1,§’yfa”nyts artd’
Sri K.v.Aswathanaraya_r1_VV’:hvat§’~Vr}o ri.’gttt,,to_efxeCute
the Wilt and t’hA,–.e”‘:f3arz’-rte ;§S,t'”C’h_a»%.f’e’nyged in the suit
and prayed that a-ttf’V_thee’;;3Vers.ohe;’V’~yxjifél be entitled
for 1/7t7:A’Si*”–1_are;:”VV’ here that the
respc§’:dyeafs–;’_ 3* ]r3Ij1ci* ,4 r.-aaitfnéhrétmt.rrcsaraswathj
and: .ySr”o_tV.{_K.§ha_ra*’t1’ah§I’ha xhatve sold, out of the
-portion meastr ring East to
V”wés_t 3.7.5.”teveteryyetee’North to South 35 feet by
mea_4n”s_oVf _$4§r:.€»’.rj;’eed. The appettahts nameiy
Sri Kflshywvatltweram and Sri K.\/ishwanath have
i,f’i%ee’*.the eu:”t”‘i’h o,s.No.1so8e of 21004 on the me
Ci\/H Judge, Mayo Hati, Bangalore,
“Ctf2§’%y:!.er:;o’i’vhg the sate deed E3><EéC{ét€d by their
rsiét-ears namety Smt.Saraswathi and
"s?ht.sharadamma on the basis of the Wit? as
their father has no right to execute the Wm as it
A 'is an arrcestra! property. AH these partiee agrees
that the suit schedtrfe property is the joint famity
property and each has equal
property.
(vii) To end the litigation a,iho;ng..s’t the “ap’peVil}:intsi1.h_’
and respondents, thVe’y.4_have”.come to”‘V’:etVt4lementVl
at the advise of the eldiersas fo|io.?vs~.:,
(viii) The appelllviarits-_gn.jam’ei!¥,V.,,’gkiviswanatii and
K.ASwathVaram name
Smt.K.,r’i’s.iiV§,;ha,i_ai<§hrni,«.,xSvri_i-.icfltigaxra Kumar and
Sri s.evtt~ledV_'thVe» matter as follows:
""" H '-fa)", portion of the site covered
H deed executed by
" Siri'i:,l'{;.iS_ar.a".swati1i and
"S.,rriVt,'KSlharadamma i,e., 17.5 feet x 35
feetvaslshown in the Sketch, the remaining
_ ""iv:p'e.rsons namely (1) Sri §<.Ashwatharam,
'A*,;{:l)sri §<.\/ishwanath, (3) SH iaieva
Kumar, {4} Sri K.l<usha Kiimar and (5)
Smt. i<.Ashwatha Lakshmi, are entitled to
1/5"" share in the remaining site. These
five persons will have 1/5"" share in the
remaining eortion of the schedule property
and the Sketeh is also enclosed and the
l
above persons have right to
property.
(b) The above said
that it is not:possib_le1″.to partiti’ovn’~ in;
beneficial mall”:-nVer..,_ S”o.__ ally’Vt.he’f”p’a’r’t’i:es
agreed to sell tl’ie:”p.rop.erty t’o«-any other 3″‘;
person Ol;f€l”:S:vA’l’i~l.ghvéSt’ price. Out of
the sale pifoceiedllsj :all’–fof”‘t_he above 5
pers.ons:’to””ge;t .tlwej.arn-ot;cn’t equally. All
V3-_tne1s’e._.persoins co. o_–pera:te’;with each other
_ *:”;_o}_se.|”i” “for the best price
All persons jointly
Ve.><ec'utel'~the._s.ale deed in favour of the
bl ppricha'5_e'r'w.__".."'In case, it is not possible to
'se_l_l"'theV'property within six months, the
._'same'Wmay be published in news paper to
'°g:at;I..ctioi1 the property through process of
vA'Cvourt. Decree may be passed in terms of
this compromise.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed to pass the
decree as per the terms of the
compromise narrated in para 8 (a) and (b)
in the ends ofjustice and eqigity.”
ll
_10_
3. The appeilants, respondent N02, 5 8zj’t3~w:’iiii.ho,A4are
parties to the aforesaid compromise are presienvt.tiei.Fola’e_”‘th”e4_
Court and are identified by their~~learne’_d It ;
evident from the joint
application as also their §ea.ri*i’ed Ad”\io.<__:ateVsV V-ha'v;e"'s'ighed the
same. Having heard. the lea-med. copnsel"'ap.pe.a°ring for the
parties Tam satisfied 'lthati__t}+ie: c'ossrri.pvromise entered into
between theépartiesisi'§aw§i,I§.; ar:d.r'easonable.
Consediientiwsglrie"appeal is disposed of in terms
ofithe atoi'esa'id' application. The Judgment & decree
Airnpuigéhed herein accordingly modified. Qraw the decree
' as a F6 ofcoslzs.
3W@
Rsk/M