- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.283 OF 2014 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KUMADAVATHI W/O.VASAPPA, D/O.LATE MANJAPPA & LATE SMT.PARVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRs 1.1. S. NAGARAJA, AGED 51 YEARS, 1.2. H.S.NATARAJA, AGED 47 YEARS, BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE H.L.VASAPPA AND LATE KUMUDAVATHI, R/AT JAYAPURA VILLAGE, GUDDEKOPPA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGA-577414. 2. SMT. VENKAMMA W/O. S.M.NAGARAJ, D/O. LATE MANJAPPA & LATE SMT.PARVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 R/AT JAYAPURA VILLAGE, GUDDEKOPPA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRAKASH G.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O.LATE PANDURANGA, D/O. LATE HOOVAPPA, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT T.B.ROAD, N.R.PURA TOWN, N.R.PURA POST, N.R.PURA TALUK - 577134. 2. SMT. MANJULA W/O. HARISH, D/O. LATE HOOVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT SOPPUGUDDE, THIRTHAHALLI TOWN-577432. 3. SMT. SULOCHANA W/O. THEJAPPA D/O. LATE HOOVAPPA, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT BETTAMAKKI EXTENSION, SEEBINAKERE POST, THIRTHAHALLI TOWN - 577432. 4. SMT. BELLAMMA W/O. LATE C.HOOVAPPA, AGED ABOUT ____YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 R/AT ARAGA VILLAGE & PSOT, THIRTHAHALLI TOWN-577432. ALL ARE FEMALE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SRI.HOOVAPPA 5. SMT. RAJIVI W/O. LATE KRISHNAMURTHY, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE HOOVAPPA, AGED 55 YEARS, 6. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O.LATE KRISHNAMURTHY, & GRAND-SON OF LATE HOOVAPPA, AGED 30 YEARS, 7. KUM. UMA D/O. LATE KRISHNAMURTHY, & GRAND-DAUGHTER OF LATE HOOVAPPA, AGED 28 YEARS, ALL ARE LRs OF KRISHNAMURTHY, FIRST SON OF LATE HOOVAPPA, ALL ARE R/AT SEEGEMALE, ARAGA TOWN, ARAGA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432 8. PUNDARIKA S/O LATE SRI. HOOVAPPA, AGED 69 YEARS, 9. VITTALA S/O LATE SRI.HOOVAPPA, AGED 66 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 10. BHASKARA S/O LATE SRI. HOOVAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS, 11. VIJAYENDRA S/O LATE SRI. HOOVAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS, 12. RAMESHA S/O. LATE HOOVAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SEEGEMALE, ARAGA TOWN, ARAGA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432. 13. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O.LATE KALASAPPA, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE SRI.HOOVAPPA, AGED 72 YEARS 14. SOMASHEKARA S/O. LATE KALASAPPA, GRAND SON OF LATE SRI.HOOVAPPA, AGED 66 YEARS 15. DEVADASA S/O LATE KALASAPPA, GRAND SON OF LATE SRI. HOOVAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS 16. NAGAMMA W/O LATE VASAPPA, AGED 69 YEARS, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 17. DAKAPPA S/O LATE VASAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS, 18. UMESHA @ CHANDRASHEKHARA S/O LATE VASAPPA, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF SEEGEMALE, AGARA TOWN, AGARA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432. WHILE FILING OF THE SUIT D2 TO 7 DEFENDANTS BEFORE TRIAL COURT AS PER ORDER ON I.A. NO.3 IN O.S. THEY WERE TRANSPOSED AS PLAINTIFF 2 TO 7 19. SEETHAMMA W/O. N.R.SUBRAMANYA, D/O. LATE KALASAPPA, AGED 46 YEARS, 20. PUTTAMMA W/O. GOVINDAPPA, D/O. LATE KALASAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS, 21. DAKAMMA W/O. SHIVANNA, D/O. LATE KALASAPPA, AGED 42 YEARS, 22. SHARADAMMA W/O. CHIDAMBARA, D/O. LATE KALASAPPA, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 AGED 38 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT SEEGEMALE, ARAGA TOWN, ARAGA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.T.GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADV. FOR R1-R12, R15, R19, R21, R22; R13-DECEASED; V/O DT: 30.06.2016 R14 & R15 ARE TREATED AS LRs OF DECEASED-13; R16, R17, R18 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R20(A), R20(B), R20(C) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 26.7.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.102/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIMOGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 21.11.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.227/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SWR.DN) & C.J.M., SHIMOGA.TRAIL COURT DECREED THE SUIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is against the concurrent finding in the suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement for partition dated 13.12.1993. 2. The suit is filed on the premise that the suit property was granted to the family of the appellants and respondents by the Land Tribunal on an application filed under Form No. 7 seeking occupancy right. 3. The suit was resisted on the premise that no such agreement was entered into between the parties. 4. The trial Court rejected the defendant's contention and the suit is consequently decreed. The defendant filed the first appeal. The first appeal is also dismissed, concurring with the findings supported by the trial Court. Hence the present second appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for defendants/appellants would submit as under: Originally one Gopalanayak held the property as a tenant and died intestate. He had 4 sons namely Manjappa, Kalsappa, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 Hoovappa and Vasappa. On 05.04.1959, four brothers partitioned the family properties and the suit property was allotted to the share of Manjappa. Hoovappa, the brother of Manjappa, filed a suit in OS No. 388/1978 for partition and separate possession and the said suit was renumbered as OS No. 104/1982. The said suit was dismissed on 07.04.1983 on the premise that there is already a partition in respect of the suit property. 6. Plaintiff further claims that against the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed in RA No.37/1983 and said appeal is also dismissed on 22.03.1989. Then the defendant Hoovappa filed RSA No.489/1989 and the said appeal is dismissed on 17.09.1997. 7. It is also stated that initially Form No.7 was filed by Manjappa's wife Parvathamma seeking occupancy right and said application was allowed and the counter claim by Hoovappa seeking occupancy right was rejected by the Tribunal. Challenging the said order, Writ Petition No.4421/1982 was filed and said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 consideration in terms of order dated 05.04.1983. Further, the Tribunal granted occupancy right to Hoovappa as well as Parvathamma and other 2 members of the family. The said order was questioned by Parvathamma by filing WP.No.39229/1992. When WP No.39229/1992 and RSA No. 489/1989 were pending consideration, without the knowledge of Parvathamma, an application is filed stating that the parties have entered into an agreement to partition the suit properties despite the counsel for Paravathamma pleading ignorance about the alleged settlement. Writ Petition No.39229/1992 was dismissed vide order dated 26.08.1999. Consequently, based on the similar submission that the dispute is settled in terms of the partition agreement dated 13.12.1993, RSA No.489/1989 was also dismissed on 17.09.1997. 8. Learned counsel for appellants would further submit that challenging the order of dismissal in WP No.39229/1992, the Writ Appeal was filed and the same was disposed of, reserving liberty to appellant in the writ appeal to file a Review Petition assailing the order passed in Writ Petition - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 No.39229/1992. It is submitted that Review petition No. 55/2002 was dismissed on the ground of delay. 9. In the light of aforementioned facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Plaintiffs/respondents filed OS No.227/1996 for specific performance of the contract for partition and same is decreed on the premise that Parvathamma agreed to accept Rs.70,000/- in lieu of sharing the family properties. 10. It is urged on behalf of appellants that the agreement for sale is outcome of fraud and Parvathamma's signature was taken without her knowledge and without disclosing the contents of the alleged agreement for partition. Thus, it is the contention that the suit could not have been decreed as Parvathamma has not consented for agreement to partition the properties. 11. Learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that Parvathamma signed the agreement for partition and accordingly RSA No.489/1989 is disposed of drawing decree as per the agreement for partition and Parvathamma - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 voluntarily agreed to settle the dispute and signed the agreement for partition. 12. It is urged that the judgment in RSA No.489/1989 is not questioned as such, the present appeal is filed challenging the decree for specific performance to register the partition recorded in RSA 489/1989 is not maintainable. 13. This Court has considered the contentions raised in the plaint and perused the records. 14. If the decree for specific performance passed by the Trial Court is pursuant to the compromise decree passed in RSA.No.489/1989, then one cannot find fault with the judgment and decree in a suit for specific performance to register the compromise. The reason is that the rights of the parties are settled in terms of decree in RSA 489/ 1989 passed on 17.09.1997 as the said order has not been questioned. 15. The only question that requires consideration is that whether the partition agreement was a subject matter of compromise in RSA No.489/1989? - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 16. This Court has considered the contentions of the parties. 17. The judgment in RSA.No.489/1989, which is delivered on 17.09.1997 reads as under: "Counsel for the appellant produced translated copy of the partition deed said to have came into effect in 1993. Of course, the counsel for respondents 2 & 4 pleads ignorance of such arrangements as he has not been informed about the same by his client. Further, believing the representation of the counsel for the appellant, the second appeal is dismissed recording the partition in this case. Respondents 2 & 4 alone objects while other respondents agrees. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed in view of the terms of the partition deed." 18. Pursuant to the aforementioned judgment, the decree is passed by this Court. The judgment referred to above would clearly indicate that the counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 pleaded ignorance about the settlement/partition reported by the counsel for the appellant in the said appeal. 19. This Court has recorded a finding that respondent Nos.2 and 4 objected to the said settlement. This Court dismissed the appeal pursuant to the terms of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 settlement/partition deed. Based on the terms of the settlement/partition deed produced before the Court, the decree is drawn. 20. The suit for specific performance to register the agreement to partition was filed in the year 1996, when the second in RSA No.489/1989 was pending before this Court. The suit in O.S.No.227/1996 was for specific performance of the partition deed dated 13.12.1993. 21. Defendant No.1-Parvathamma in the said suit did not questioned the decree passed by this Court in RSA.No.489/1989. The decree passed by this Court was produced at Ex.P3. The suit in O.S.No.227/1996 came to be decreed on 21.11.2009. Thus, it is apparent to note that the decree passed by this Court in RSA.No.489/1989 was produced before the trial Court during the pendency of the proceedings and the parties asserted that there is a settlement pursuant to the partition deed dated 13.12.1993 and based on that, the appeal is disposed of. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 22. Defendant No.1 has not questioned the said decree though it was brought to the notice of defendant No.1 when the suit seeking registration of the partition agreement was pending. 23. More importantly, the writ petition filed by Parvathamma granting occupancy right to the extent of 1/4th share to all the family members is also dismissed. 24. The partition agreement dated 13.12.1993 records that Parvathamma has received Rs.20,000/- through Demand Draft No.002478 dated 11.12.1993 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Theerthahalli Branch, that is the Demand Draft is taken two days prior to the partition agreement dated 13.12.1993. 25. Thereafter, the party to the partition agreement namely Parvathamma was required to receive Rs.50,000/- as she agreed to relinquish 1/4th share for Rs.70,000/-. The suit is filed contending that she is not agreeing to co-operate for registration of the partition deed by accepting the balance consideration amount. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 26. After considering the materials on record, the trial Court has passed a decree and directed the plaintiff in the said suit to pay Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the suit till realization of the said amount. A direction is also issued to defendant No.1 to receive Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the decree passed by this Court in RSA.No.489/1989, is not binding on Parvathamma on the premise that she was not present before this Court when the appeal was dismissed and Advocate has pleaded ignorance about the settlement/partition deed dated 13.12.1993. 28. What is required to be noticed is after the disposal of said RSA.No.489/1989, Parvathamma has not questioned the said Judgment on the premise that she has not consented for the partition. It is also required to be noticed that no application is filed to review the said judgment despite the judgment is brought to the notice of Parvathamma or her legal representatives in O.S.No.227/1996. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 29. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the judgment in RSA 489/1989 and the order passed by the Land Tribunal binds Parvathamma. 30. In addition to that, it is also required to be noticed that both Courts have recorded a concurrent finding that Parvathamma received Rs.20,000/- through demand draft as stated in the partition deed dated 13.12.1993. If that is the case, it is one more indication of the fact that Parvathamma consented for the partition deed dated 13.12.1993. 31. There is yet another angle to this case, it is stated in the partition deed dated 13.12.1993 that Parvathamma had 1/4th share in the suit property. This is the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal, where Parvathamma also filed Form No.7 and Hoovappa also filed Form No.7. The Land Tribunal has taken view that the property is the joint family property and granted 1/4th share to Parvathamma. Challenging the same, Parvathamma has filed W.P.No.39229/1992 before this Court. After disposal of RSA.No.489/1989, Parvathamma did not pursue the said writ petition. Later, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 1999. This again - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 gives an indication that Parvathamma gave up her claim for entire property in Sy.No.73. If Parvathamma had an intention to claim entire property bearing Sy.No.73, she would have pursued her writ petition. 32. In view of the dismissal of W.P.No.39229/1992, the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting 1/4th share to Parvathamma has attained finality. 33. This being the position, this Court does not find any error in Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which are confirmed by First Appellate Court. 34. It is also noticed that there is a direction to pay Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. If the said amount is not yet deposited, the respondents shall deposit the said amount as directed by the trial Court with due notice to the present appellants. 35. If the amount is already deposited and for any reason if it is kept in interest earning deposit, said amount along with interest shall be released in favour of the appellants. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37134 RSA No. 283 of 2014 36. It is also made clear that if at all, plaintiffs/respondents have deposited the amount before the trial Court, without notice to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs/respondents are liable to pay Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of payment. For the reasons stated above, appeal is dismissed. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SSD, SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6