- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7329 RSA No. 7026 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7026 OF 2009 (DEC) BETWEEN: SANGAMMA @ SHASHIKALA, W/O. GUNDAPPA MANGERI, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. 1. SATISH S/O GUNDAPPA MANGERI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 2. SHIVAPUTRA S/O GUNDAPPA MANGERI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 3. SMT. SHEETA W/O NAGNATH BHARAMSHETY, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 4. SUVARNA W/O SHASHIKANT SHETGAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, ALL R/O VILLAGE KANKATTA, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR, KARNATAKA-585330. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHETAN KALBURGI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7329 RSA No. 7026 of 2009 AND: SANGAPPA S/O MAHALINGAPPA DABASHETTY, SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S A. SMT. KALAVATI W/O SANGAPPA DABASHETTY, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. B. SMT. SHAILAJA D/O SANGAPPA DABASHETTY, NOW AFTER MARRIAGE W/O VINAYAK KOTE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER. C. PRADEEP S/O SANGAPPA DABASHETTY, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER. D. SMT. SAVITA D/O SANGAPPA DABASHETTY, NOW AFTER MARRIAGE W/O RAJU GIRI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, E. PRAKASH S/O SANGAPPA DABASHETTY, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, ALL R/O H. NO. 10-3/1E, KALA SANGHA NILAYA, VITAL NAGAR, KALABURAGI- 585102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI R.S. KADAGANCHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(C); SRI HANMANTHRAYA SINDOL, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A), R1(B), R1(D) AND R1[E]) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.2.2003 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD) HUMNABAD IN O.S.NO.363/96 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.3.2008 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (S.D.) BASAVAKALYAN IN R.A.NO. 15/2003. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7329 RSA No. 7026 of 2009 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL) This appeal is by defendant No.3, since deceased represented by her legal representatives aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2003 passed in O.S.No.363/1996 by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Humnabad,(for short ‘the Trial Court’) which is confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2008 passed in R.A.No.15/2003 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Basavakalyan, (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’). 2. The above suit in O.S.No.363/1996 was filed by Sangappa Dabashetty, the original plaintiff now represented by his legal representatives respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.159 measuring 3 acres and 31 guntas and land bearing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7329 RSA No. 7026 of 2009 Sy.No.180/2, 180/3, 180/4 measuring 3 acres and 29 guntas, both situated at Kankatta Village, Tq: Humnabad, Dist: Bidar, against his father Mahalingappa Dabashetty, mother Bandamma and sister Sangamma claiming himself to be the owner of the same. It is his case that the said property though belonged to him was nominally purchased in the name of his father Mahalingappa-defendant No.1. That, said Mahalingappa defendant No.1 had gifted the property in favour of his sister Sangamma the defendant No.3. Subsequently said Mahalingappa-defendant No.1 and Sangamma-defendant No.2 had entered into compromise in O.S.No.179/1996. As such, relief was also sought for declaration that the said compromised decree as null and void and not binding. The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that plaintiff to be the owner of the property, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the original defendant filed the present appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7329 RSA No. 7026 of 2009 3. Both the original plaintiff and original defendant Nos.1 to 3 are no more. The legal representatives of original defendants namely appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and legal representatives of original plaintiff who respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) are the only surviving legal heirs of the original parties to the suit. 4. A compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, is filed by the legal representatives of the original defendants and the original plaintiff, which reads as under; “Compromise Petition U/o 23 Rule 3 of CPC r/w U/o 41 Rule 33 of CPC The Appellants and Respondents most respectfully submits as under: 1. That with the intervention of elders, well wishers and relatives of parties to this appeal, the parties are settled their dispute on the following terms and conditions: 2. That the LRs No. 3 and 4 of appellant have given their power attorney to LRs No. 2 to enter into this compromise petition on their behalf. Likewise the LRs No.1(a) 1(b) and 1(d) 1(e) of Respondent have given their power attorney to LR No 1(c) of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7329 RSA No. 7026 of 2009 Respondent to enter into this compromise petition on their behalf. 3. That the LRs of Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 (a) to (e) are agreed to give the entire landed properties left by Mahalingappa S/o Bandeppa Dabshetty in favour of the LRs of the defendant/appellant No. (a) to (d). The LRs of the defendant/appellant No. (a) to (d) accepted the same. 4. After this compromise, the LRs defendant/appellant No.1(1) to (4) are the joint owners and possessors of landed properties bearing Sy. No: 159 measuring 03 acres 31 guntas and land Sy. No: 180/2, 3 and 4 measuring 03 acres 29 guntas, both are situated at Kankatta village, Tq: Humnabad, Dist: Bidar. Further the LRs of the defendant/appellant No.1 to 4 are at liberty to incorporate their names in the revenue records as its joint owners and possessors by filing necessary application before the Tahsildar Humnabad, for which the LRs of Plaintiff/Respondent No. (a) to (e) are having no objection of whatsoever. 5. In view of the above terms and conditions the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S. No: 363/1996 and lower appellate court in R.A. No: 15/2003 are fit to be set aside. Further the LRs of the defendant/appellant No.1(1) to (4) be declared as joint owners and possessors of the suit properties bearing Sy.NO.159 measuring 03 acres 31 gunta and Land Sy.NO.180/2, 3 and 4 measuring 03 acres 29 guntas both situated at Kankatta village Tq: Humnabad Dist: Bidar, by allowing this appeal, in terms of the compromise. Further the respondent/plaintiff No.a to e admit the ownership of defendant/Appellant No.1(1) to 4 over - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7329 RSA No. 7026 of 2009 the suit properties, in the interest of justice and equity. 6. That this Hon'ble Court is having inherent extra ordinary powers and jurisdiction to allow the compromise petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” 5. Appellant Nos.1(a) and 1(b) namely Sri. Satish and Sri. Shivaputra the sons of original appellant – defendant No.3 - Smt. Sangamma @ Smt. Shasikala for themselves and representing the interest of their sisters, namely Smt. Sheela and Smt. Suvarna the appellants Nos.1(c) and 1(d) are present before this Court. 6. Smt. Shailaja and Sri. Pradeep, the respondents No.1(b) and 1(c) are also present. 7. The special power of attorney executed by other legal representatives of original appellants in favour of Satish and Shivaputra as well as power of attorney executed by other legal representatives of deceased original respondents in favour of Pradeep are produced. Same are taken on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7329 RSA No. 7026 of 2009 8. On a query by this Court, it is revealed that the legal representatives of the original appellant herein have also filed a suit in O.S.No.110/2025 in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.60/*/* totally measuring 3 acres, Sy.No.61/*/6 measuring 1 acres 30 guntas and Sy.No.133/*2 totally measuring 6 acres 22 guntas, all situated at Navadagi Village, Tq: Bhalki, Dist: Bidar, and the said suit is pending consideration. 9. The said Satish and Shivaputra, appellants No.1(a) and 1(b), further confirmed that upon this appeal being compromised, they would report settlement in the said suit in O.S.No.110/2025, relinquishing their rights in favour of respondents No.1(a) to 1(d) the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. The said submission is taken on record. 10. Parties have understood the terms of the compromise. The same are not oppose to any provisions of law. *Corrected Vide Court order dated 08.04.2026 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7329 RSA No. 7026 of 2009 11. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in terms of compromise. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, are set aside. The suit is decreed in terms of compromise. Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT:PK