Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71259 (KAR)

SRI SIDDALINGAIAH v. SRI PRADEEP M P

CRP/453/2023 · 2025-12-04

V Srishananda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51526 CRP No. 453 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 453 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, 2. SMT. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O SIDDALINGAIAH, 3. SRI. MAHESHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O SIDDALINGAIAH, 4. SRI. M S BHYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O SIDDALINGAIAH, ALL ARE R/O MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI PRADEEP M.P. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O PUTTEGOWDA, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51526 CRP No. 453 of 2023 R/O MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402 2. SMT. PUNYAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O HEMANTH, R/AT B K NAGAR YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE - 560 022 3. SRI. M S SWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, 4. SRI. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, 5. SRI. SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, 6. SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, R3 TO R6 ARE R/O MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402 SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O. LATE CHANNEGOWDA D/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51526 CRP No. 453 of 2023 7. SMT. YASHODHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O RUDRAPPA D/O LATE CHANNAMMA, R/O B HOSUR VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 402 8. SMT. NAGARATHNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O KARIGOWDA D/O LATE CHANNAMMA R/O H MALLIGERE VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402 9. SMT. PUTAMANI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O KARIGOWDA D/O LATE CHANNAMMA R/A MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASASALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 402 10. SMT. LATHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEAS, W/O RAMESHGOWDA, D/O LATE CHANNAMMA R/O DODDAGARUDANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51526 CRP No. 453 of 2023 11. DEVARAJU DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. SUDHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O LATE DEVARAJU, 12. SRI. BHARATH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O LATE DEVARAJU, 13. SRI. SHARATH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, S/O LATE DEVARAJU, R11 TO R13 ARE R/AT B HOSURU VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402 14. SMT. PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O VENKATESH D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA R/AT BEHIND SOMAKESHAVASWAMY TEMPLE NAGAMANGALA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 405 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 R3 - M.S. SWAMY - SERVED R4 - PUTTASWAMY -SERVED R5 - SHIVALINGAIAH - SERVED R6 - JAYAMMA - SERVED R7 - YASHODHA - SERVED R8 - NAGARATHNA - SERVED - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51526 CRP No. 453 of 2023 R9 - PUTAMANI - SERVED R10 - LATHA - SERVED R11 - SUDHA - SERVED R12 - BHARATH - SERVED R13 - SHARATH - SERVED R14 - PUTTAMMA - SERVED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2023 PASSED ON IA NO. 10 IN O.S. NO.24/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA REJECTING THE IA NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(D) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a memo which reads as under: "The counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 most respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court please to dispose of the above petition with liberty to the plaintiffs to approach the trial court and seek to be open the Suit in O.S.No.78/2012 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya in the interest of justice and equity." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51526 CRP No. 453 of 2023 2. Placing the memo on record, revision petition is allowed. 3. Consequently, plaint is rejected with liberty for the plaintiff to file necessary application seeking for setting aside the compromise decree insofar as the plaintiffs are concerned. 4. If such an application is filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, learned Trial Judge who recorded the compromise shall consider the said application on merits in accordance with law and dispose of the same. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC ct:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40