- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3108 RSA No. 355 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 355 OF 2005 (PAR) BETWEEN: RAMU, S/O BABU MANGALE, AGE: 56 YEARS, R/O SHEDBAL - 591 315, TA: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM. …. APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHANTAKKA W/O HONAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O NASALAPUR - 591 299, TQ RAIBAG, DIST BELGAUM 2. SMT. HOUSAKKA W/O MAHAVIR PATIL, AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O C/O SRI MAHAVIR RAJAGOUDA PATIL, M/s RAJ GARMENT STORES, PADMAVATI COLONY, NEMINATH NAGAR, EAST DHAMANI ROAD, SANGLI - 416 416. (MAHARASTRA) 3. SMT. CHAMPAKKA W/O MAHAVEER PATIL, AGE:40 YEARS, R/OUNGAR - BUDRUK - 591 320, TQ ATHANI, DIST BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 19.02.2004 PASSED IN R.A.NO Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3108 RSA No. 355 of 2005 7/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.2.2000 PASSED IN O.S. NO.84/1988 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, ATHANI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA) RSA Nos.505/2004 and 355/2005 are taken up together, however, separate orders have been passed. 2. The present second appeal is by the purchaser who was arrayed as Defendant No.5 before the trial Court. The suit is one for partition and separate possession. The genealogical tree of the parties is as under: Tatyasaheb (Died in 1972) / Babasaheb Sumitra Adopted son (Died in 1969) of Tatyasaheb Ramanagouda / / / / Shantakka Housakka Champakka (Plff 1) (Plff 2) (Plff 3) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3108 RSA No. 355 of 2005 3. The Trial Court framed issue No.9, which reads as under: "9. Do plaintiffs prove that sale deed executed by Defendants 1 and 2 in favour of Defendant No.5 is void for the reasons stated in para 3 of the plaint?" 4. The trial Court answered issue No.9 in the Affirmative holding that the plaintiffs have proved that the sale deed executed by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of Defendant No.5 is void. Aggrieved, the defendant No.5 preferred appeal in R.A. No.7/2003, the appellant is purchaser of item No.1[b] in R.S. No.454/1B. 5. RSA No.505/2004 is preferred by the defendants, in the said appeal, the appellants Nos.1[a], 2, 4 and respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 have entered into compromise, as per the terms of the compromise as indicated clause No.4 (a) to (o). - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3108 RSA No. 355 of 2005 6. In clause No.4(n), it is stated that the interest of respondent No.4/defendant No.5 is not effected in any manner by the said compromise. 7. Learned counsel on both sides submit that the judgment and decree of the Courts below on issue No.9 be modified in light of the compromise entered into between the parties. The findings recorded by the Courts below on issue No.9 is modified in terms of the compromise. 8. Accordingly, Regular Second Appeal stands disposed of. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Ravi S. Balikai seeks for return of original sale deed dated 06.07.1987 produced along with I.A.No.1/2013 to the appellants. 10. The Registry to return the original sale deed to the appellant on the appellant producing Photostat copies of the sale deed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3108 RSA No. 355 of 2005 In view of disposal of the aforesaid appeal, pending interlocutory applications would not survive for consideration. Sd/- ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1