Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12951 (KAR)

SMT. MUNIYAMMA v. SMT. NARAYANAMMA

RFA/1777/2017 · 2026-03-13

M I Arun

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15407 RFA No. 1777 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1777 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. 1(a). 1(b). 1(c). 1(d). SMT. MUNIYAMMA D/O. LATE ATTIGANAHALLI MUNIYAPPA, W/O. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. SANTHEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125 SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S SRI. NAGARAJA S/O. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SMT. KAMALAMMA D/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SRI. SRINIVAS S/O. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15407 RFA No. 1777 of 2017 ALL ARE R/AT SANTHEKALLAHALLI KAIWARA HOBLI CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH AND SRI K. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. LATE MADAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O. LATE MADAVAPPA, W/O. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BUSANAHALLI VILLAGE, YEMARALAHALLI POST, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105. 3. SMT. ARUNA D/O. LATE MADAVAPPA, W/O. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT GIDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KESHAWARA POST, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 228. 4. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE MADAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15407 RFA No. 1777 of 2017 5. SRI. ANAND S/O. LATE MADAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 6. SRI. NAGESH S/O. LATE MADAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 7. SRI. MUNINANJAPPA S/O. LATE ATTIGANAHALLI MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF BEECHAGONDAHALLI VILLAGE, SANTHEKALLAHALLI POST, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.J. JAGADEESHA, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.07.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.100/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., KOLAR, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15407 RFA No. 1777 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.100/2014 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kolar. The suit is for partition amongst family members. 2. Upon the advice of elders and well-wishers, the parties have arrived at a compromise and have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The parties are present before the Court and they are identified by their respective advocates. They pray that the appeal be allowed in terms of the compromise and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.100/2014 be modified accordingly. 3. The compromise petition is taken on record. 4. The appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise. The impugned judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.100/2014 stands modified accordingly. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15407 RFA No. 1777 of 2017 5. The Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2