Loading...

Venkataramana S/O Narasimhaiah vs Gangaiah S/O Narasimhaiah Dead By … on 9 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Venkataramana S/O Narasimhaiah vs Gangaiah S/O Narasimhaiah Dead By … on 9 November, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
OATEO THIS THE 9" DAY OF NOvEMBERv2'zj :EQ

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.JuST1cE 3Aw_AO 1"  

CRP NO. 7S:_/TS%2oI10..TE 4'

BETWEEN

VENKATARAMANA
S/O NARASIMHAIAH,   .
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS?' _ L  ;
R/A. No. 180/19, 11TH cR.OSJS'    
BOVIPALYA, MAHALAXMIPURA--  V
BANGALORE,-4'5.6V_GO86    

 PETITIONER

(By M/S. A v   7

AND

GANGAIAH .NARAS~wTHAIAH
SIN CE .DEAD" EAcHz--SA LRS " """ "

1.

RATTTATAH  »{LATEj..GA1ANGAIAH
AGED 6-Q'/EAR_~S__ 

. VRAMAI/AH S;.KO LATE GANGAIAH

- AGED 50 YEARS

  SE'E'Nw.AP"PA S/O LATE GANGAIAH
 ASEO 48 YEARS



I
ix)
1

4. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE GANGAIAH
AGED 46 YEARS

5. SMT SUVARNAMMA W/O SADANANDA
AGED 50 YEARS

6. PRAKASH S/O LT GANGAIAH
AGED 45 YEARS   

ALL ARE R/O BEECHANAHALLI'.  '
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI   
MAGADI TALUK  
RAMANAGARA DIST A

7. LAKKANNA S/O NA_RASIr.4A1_  
AGED 85 YEARS     
R/O BEEcHAr\:.AHA;LLI,"n _   A 
THIPPASANDR-A HOABLZI" "  
MAGADIT-Q  A    A
RAMANAG--;AR:A DIST  L_  

MUDLAIA H' :NARAv§'iM'HAIAH
SINCE-V DEAD._BvjH1SS~.LR«S~--'

8. Sm. T'HvIM'MAAHAN.uVMAKKA w/o. LATE MUDLAIAH
,.;_AcaED 55 '»<EAfe,HS_

 A 9.. _'NASRAS--I4lnVTHAIAH S/O LATE MUDLAIAH

"  ' -- SASEAVD' ;4._Q'j.YEARS

' BO-'"£"HR';ARE R/O BEECHANAHALLI
" THIPPASANDRA HOBLI
 MAGADI TALUK
'  RAMANAGARA DIST
  RESPONDENTS

____(EBY SRI. : T N VISWANATH, ADV. FOR R3, R4, R7 & R8)

A

a/’

CRP FILED U/S 115 OF CPC., AGAINST___ THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:15.01.201O PAvSS.ED_V ON
IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.240/1979 ON THE FILE OF TH’E.’,:CI\1.IL

JUDGE, (JR. DN.), MAGADI, DISMISSING

MAINTAINABILITY.

THIS crap IS COMING ON.1ApimssroixiVrnniis

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FoLi;ovviNta: E
o R’B.flE.R

This revision ‘*a_g,ai’n,st the order cit.
15/1/2o1o in og.gs.24o/.1979 1yVhere¥.by’Vt:hie’iappiication filed
by the pet§:_’t’iorf,:1_:}-‘gw seekingéi eintorcement of the decree
passed in: 1162/1971 has been
rejected directing him to file execution

proceedings

2,” i-imeardkf.h.e.vrevision is admitted and taken up for

1 f,i,na.l,disp’os’a,i,”‘

3__.> ‘C:o”ntextuai facts to which reference needs to be

reveal; the petitioner-Venkataramana had filed a

iiin O.S.57/60 on the file of II Munsiff, Bangalore,

-4-

seeking for a division of the properties described in the
schedule to the piaint for assigning and allocating “to him

1/4″‘ share therein. The suit was decreed on _14:/:9/,1-»965

granting him 1/4″‘ share in the schedule

item No.9. That judgment and decree was”asxsai|’e’d by t-he’V

respondents in RA No. 228/65.,’

allowed in part modifyin’rl_j__v”*~-tghe to-ecree

whereby the decree grantinAg___l:i:A;*r–ii»_””share “to.,_thVef§ petitioner
in the schedule properties,e}:,ce{.pt. was set aside.
Instead, the appeilate”couift: in respect of
properties filed in the suit.

In as granted by the Trial Court
was redLiced.,, it, he was in 2″” appeal in RSA
Nv.c:«.§g;tV;I.i€,2/71in’i”n–.th_is’court. It appears, the petitioner and
r re_Si30n.den_ts resolved to settle the dispute amicably
terms of settlement. In the terms of
setltlerrientywlarrived at between them, this court passed the

2 .. xfoililowing 0rd er:

:3

-5,
“By consent of the appellant and respondent
No.1, expressed through their respective
counsel, a further decree is made in favour’o’f’»,.
the appellant, in addition to the decree.,.._rfa’:lVc’:I’VCi’ef4.x'”~
by the court below awarding possession–ofisiuit” A
item No.9 and a sum ofAA,vRs.25C}/”rv~,V
appellant from respondent No:,’1,je,
The appellant shall be entitI’e_dl”t_oz
profits in respect of_V:””s.uit Aitern»
respondent No.1 Gowrarnrna .from”todl_au tilfi the

date of deliverfxofi.DosAsef:»Si’o.n_..,n_l’we shalllalso be
entitled to interest.i_atthe ‘percent per
annum on the «VRs’,25O/~ from

today 3-l;i|| date rea1iie.%;a£igo’r1″. The decree

belowwlin regard to the rest
WE-.ta”n.ds affirnaed , ‘ ll

w_ith…”~5lthe decree passed in RSA No.

__referred …. ..to above, the petitioner filed an

.:a’pp.licatio’n»before the Trial Court in O.S.240/79 to pass

dfinallé The Learned Trial Judge, without noticing the

maxndalte in the decree in RSA No. 1162/71, that enquiry

V iriaeto be held under Order 20 Rule 12(1)(c) of the cpc,

Wk

under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC, is hereby set aside, the

application filed by the petitioner in O.S.240/6′;’3:’shhg:agil’vv_be

registered separately as FDF proceedings on–.y’t:i’1eV

Learned Trial Judge and in those.:pre–c.eeci_ing_Vs’flitIh4eVLe.a.rn’led it

Trial Judge shall conduct an

preliminary decree in RSA and-.119i&fe”a’ff’ect tcln”

the decree as passed:_.thereixn--;—- :’E~nduiry shall–..also be held

with regard to mesne p’i”o_fit asn(il»V:f;he’nsvV:ApasS«the final decree.

With this observ’at_ion,:_’thVe disppsed of.

Rev’ i ‘V ..

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information