- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6595-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100395 OF 2018 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA HONAWAD, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WARD NO.5, MAHANT NAGAR, DR.HIREMATH COMPLEX, HUNGUND-587118, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 2. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O.SHIVAPUTRAPPA HONAWAD, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: WARD NO.5, MAHANT NAGAR, DR.HIREMATH COMPLEX, HUNGUND-587118, DIST: BAGALKOTE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUVARNABAYI W/O. SANGAPPA KARADI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: CHAMUNDESHWARI NILAYA, ADARSHA NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR-586103. 2. SMT. KASTURIBAYI W/O. ASHOK DODAMANI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PLOT NO.9-B, SECTOR NO.29, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587102. 3. DRAKSHAYINI D/O. GANGAPPA HONAWAD, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.25 10:37:28 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6595-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2018 R/O: PLOT NO.9-B, SECTOR NO.29, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587102. 4. SHRI. CHANDRAKANTA S/O. BASALINGAPPA HONAWAD, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O: H.NO.B1, HOMEGUARD QUARTERS NEAR ALASOOR LAKE, BENGLAURU-560042. 5. SMT. SHREEDEVI @ DEVAMMA W/O. GURAPPA RADDEWADAGI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: INGALAGI, POST: WADI-585225, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI. 6. [SHRI. PRAVEEN S/O. MALLIKARJUN HALAPETE AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SANGAMESHWAR GUDI ROAD, HUNGUND-587118, DIST: BAGALKOTE] AS PER MEMO DATED 17.04.2025 AND ORDER PASSED ON THAT MEMO, THE RESPONDENT NO.6 IS DELETED AS NOT PRESSED. HENCE AMENDMENT CARRIED ON 17.04.2025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3; SRI. S.B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5; RESPONDENT NO.6-DELETED V/O. DATED 17.04.2025) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96(1) R/W. XLI RULE 1 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 10.08.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.22/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUNGUND, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6595-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This captioned appeal is filed by defendants No.3 and 4 assailing the Preliminary Decree drawn in O.S.No.22/2014. Today a Joint Compromise Petition is filed by defendants, who are brothers of respondent/plaintiffs. By way of Joint Compromise Petition, defendants who are brothers have agreed to give sites, which are indicated in paragraph Nos.3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G and 3H of the Joint Compromise Petition. 2. As per paragraph No.3A, plaintiff No.1-Suvarnabayi W/o.Sangappa Karadi is allotted five sites and possession is already handed over. Similarly, as per paragraph No.3B, plaintiff No.2-Kasturibayi W/o.Ashok Dodamani is allotted six plots and possession is already handed over. As per paragraph No.3C, plaintiff No.3-Drakshayini D/o.Gangappa Honawad is also allotted seven sites and possession is already handed over. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6595-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2018 3. On a specific query made by this Court, Plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3, who are personally present before us, have unequivocally stated that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise with their brothers, the defendants herein. The plaintiffs have further affirmed that they have not been induced, coerced, threatened, or unduly influenced by any of the defendants in arriving at this compromise. Their statement has been recorded and taken on file. 4. This Court has carefully examined the terms and conditions as set forth in the Joint Compromise Petition. We have also considered the manner in which the non- agricultural sites have been allotted to Plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3. Upon perusal, it is evident that substantial and equitable shares have been allocated to all three plaintiffs under the compromise. Taking into account the voluntary nature of the agreement and the fair distribution of the properties, we are satisfied that the compromise entered into between the sisters (plaintiffs) and the brothers (defendants) is lawful and genuine. Consequently, the Joint Compromise Petition is accepted and taken on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6595-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2018 5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Respondent No.6, who is the purchaser of certain properties and arrayed as Defendant No.5 in the suit proceedings, is not a party to the present compromise. However, it is clarified that the properties alienated by Defendant No.1 in favour of Respondent No.6—Praveen Mallikarjun Halapete are not the subject matter of the present compromise petition. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants have acknowledged the validity and binding nature of the sale deed executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Respondent No.6. Since the alienated properties do not fall within the scope of the compromise, and in view of the mutual consent of the parties regarding the said sale, we are of the considered view that Respondent No.6 is not a necessary party to the present compromise. Accordingly, the memo filed seeking deletion of Respondent No.6 (Defendant No.5) from the array of parties in the appeal is allowed. The plaintiffs and the remaining defendants are thus entitled to record and act upon the compromise in relation to the rest of the properties. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6595-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2018 6. In view of the foregoing discussion and based on the voluntary and lawful nature of the settlement, the compromise petition is accepted. Consequently, the Preliminary Decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.22/2014 shall stand modified in terms of the amicable settlement recorded in the Joint Compromise Petition. The modified decree shall reflect the terms as agreed upon between the parties and duly recorded herein. 7. The Joint Compromise Petition shall form part and parcel of the Final Decree. 8. The registry is directed to draw final decree in terms of the Joint Compromise Petition excluding alienated lands in favour of Respondent no. 6/Defendant no.5. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22