- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1883 RSA No. 409 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 409 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ-) BETWEEN: K. M. SHIVANNA SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS 1(a) SMT. K.M.SHIVAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, KUDLUR VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. 1(b) MR. K. S. SOMASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, KUDLUR VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. 1(c) SMT. K. S. KUSUMA D/O LATE SHIVANNA, W/O R. VISWANATH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO.19, 62/88, 5TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, VIDHYANAGAR, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE. 1(d) MRS. K. S. USHARANI D/O. LATE SHIVANNA, W/O NAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, 4TH STAGE, VIKASANAGAR, Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1883 RSA No. 409 of 2014 OPP : ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CHIKKAMAGALUR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.R.SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B. M. PARAMESHWARAPPA 2. B. P. SIDRAMAPPA NOTE: RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 4 ARE DEAD. RESPONDENT NO.1 IS REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3. THERE ARE NO LEGAL HEIRS FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 4. 3. MR. V. P. BASAVARAJU @ BASAVARAJAPPA V.P S/O LATE PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, BEERANAHALLI, TALUK:TARIKERE, CHIKKMAGALUR DISTRICT. 4. SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR, DEAD NOT SURVIVED BY ANY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, 5. MR. JAYAKUMAR @ UDAYA KUMAR DEAD BY HIS LRS 5(a) MRS. KALAI VANI K W/O LATE UDAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 5(b) MR. SUMAN U S/O LATE UDAYA KUMAR, AGED ABUT 36 YEARS, 5(c) MR. DINESH KUMAR U S/O LATE UDAYA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.95, MUNIYAMMA COMPOUND - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1883 RSA No. 409 of 2014 IRUDAY PURAM, BANGARPET, ROBERTSONPET, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 122. 6. R. JAYASHEELAN, DEAD BY HIS LRS 6(a) MRS. DHANALAKSHMI P W/O LATE R. JAYASHEELAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 6(b) MR. J. ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE R. JAYASHEELAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF 1797/1 SUBHASHINI COLLEGE ROAD, ROBBERTSONPET, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 122. 7. MR. SAMPATH KUMAR SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY 7(a) MRS. NAVANITHEM.D. W/O LATE SAMPATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2-293, 2ND BLOCK, NEAR MAHAVISHNU MANTAPAM, PARANDAHALLI, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 122. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.A.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, 2, 4, 5, 7 AND R6 (A & B); SRI. MANJUNATH V. P., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED:7.1.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & PRL. JMFC., TARIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED:16.2.2000 PASSED IN OS.NO.107/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & ADDL. JMFC., TARIKERE. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1883 RSA No. 409 of 2014 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of CPC for setting aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.107/1996 which came to be dismissed and the same was upheld by the Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC Tarikere in RA.No.14/2000. 2. The legal heirs of the original appellants are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. The respondents are the defendants in the Trial Court. The ranks of the parties are retained for the sake of convenience. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that a land in Sy.No.169 of Baggadalli Kaval Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru district, measuring 5 acres 36 guntas originally belongs to one Rajamanikyam and he said to be executed Will in favour original plaintiff K.M.Shivanna and the said Rajamanikyam died on 04.03.1996 and thereby the plaintiff became owners of the schedule property. However the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1883 RSA No. 409 of 2014 defendant Nos.4 to 7 said to be children of Rajamanikyam and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the agreement holder and tenant of these schedule property said to be claimed the property as children of the Rajamanikyam. Accordingly suit came to be filed by the plaintiff which came to be dismissed. Subsequently appeal also as dismissed. Accordingly the appellant/plaintiff is before this court. 4. During the pendency of this appeal both plaintiff and legal representatives of the plaintiff and also the legal representatives of the respondents filed joint compromise application in I.A.No.4/2025, Under order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. As per the terms of the compromise, out of the entire land in Sy.No.169, measuring 5 acres 36 guntas, 2 acres 38 guntas fallen to the share of the appellant/plaintiff which is identified as 'A' schedule property. The remaining 2.38 guntas shall be in favour of the respondents, which is referred as 'B' schedule property . 5. The parties also has no objection to transfer the khatha in respect of 'A' schedule property and 'B' Schedule property, as stated above. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1883 RSA No. 409 of 2014 6. All the legal representatives of the plaintiff Nos.1 (a) to 1(d) are present. The respondent Nos.3 and legal heirs of respondent No.5 (a) to (c) and legal heirs of respondent No.6 (a) and (b )and legal heir of respondent No.7, are all present before the court. Both parties have agreed before the court by accepting the compromise, by diving the schedule property equally by 2 acres and 38 guntas each as 'A' schedule property shall go to the appellant and 'B' schedule property to the respondents. Accordingly, the compromise is accepted, hence, I.A.No.4/2025 is hereby allowed. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in view of the compromise . Draw the decree as per the terms of the compromise as per paragraph No.4 of the compromise. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE AKV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 7 CT:SK