- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. LATE KONDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2. SRI RAVISHA S/O. LATE KONDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 3. SRI MAHADEVA S/O. LATE KONDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 4. SMT. GEETHA W/O. LATE KONDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 5. SRI JAVAREGOWDA S/O. LATE BYRASHETTY GOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. 5(a) SRI SIDDARAJU S/O. JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 5(b) SRI SHIVAMURTHY S/O. LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS SINCE DECEASED LR'S ARE APPELLANT NOS.5(A), 5(C) TO 5(G). 5(c) SRI CHIKKAIAH Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 S/O. LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. 5(d) SRI CHANDU S/O. LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. 5(e) SMT. LAKSHMI D/O. LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 5(f) SMT. RAJAMANI D/O. LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 5(g) SMT. MANJULA D/O. LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.5(A) TO 5(G) ARE R/AT KALISIDDANAHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 019. 6. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE KENCHEGOWDA AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE BYRASEHTTYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 7. SRI KARIGOWDA S/O. LATE BYRASEHTTYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 8. SRI LAKSHMANA S/O. LATE BYRASEHTTYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT KALISIDDANAHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 019. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI Y.V. PRAKSAH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O. LATE KARAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2. SMT. NANJAMMA W/O. LATE KARAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 3. SMT. NAGANNA D/O. LATE KARAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 4. SRI SIDDAIAH S/O. LATE KARAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. 4(a) SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O. LATE SIDDAIAH @ SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 4(b) SRI ABHI S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH @ SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 4(c) SRI KIRAN S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH @ SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.4(A) TO 4(C) ARE RESIDING AT KALISIDDANAHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 SIRRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 019. 5. SRI THIMMANNA S/O. LATE KARAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 6. SRI SRINIVASA S/O. LATE KARAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 7. SRI LAXMANA S/O. LATE KARAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 8. SRI SIDDAIAH S/O. LATE KARAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 9. SRI NAGA S/O. LATE KARAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. 9(a) SMT. REKHA W/O. LATE NAGA @ NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 9(b) MASTER MANU S/O. LATE NAGA @ NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS. 9(c) KUM. ANUSHREE D/O. LATE NAGA @ NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.9(B) AND (C) ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. REKHA - RESPONDENT NO.9. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 RESPONDENT NOS.9(A) TO (C) ARE RESIDING AT KALISIDDANAHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 019. 10. SRI KENCHA S/O. LATE KARAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 11. SMT. SIDDAMMA D/O. LATE KARAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 12. SRI KENCHEGOWDA S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 13. SRI CHIKKEGOWDA S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. 14. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 15. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA D/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA W/O. SRI KANIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. 15(A) SR NAGARAJ S/O. LATE SMT.CHIKKATHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 16. SMT. SIDDAMMA D/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA W/O. SRI SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 17. SMT.SANNAMMA - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 D/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA W/O. LATE KALEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. 17(a) SRI SHIVANNA S/O. LATE SMT. SANNAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 17(b) SRI PUTTARAJU S/O. LATE SMT. SANNAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS SINCE DECESEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES RESPONDENT NOS.17(A) AND 17(C) 17(c) SRI LOKESH S/O. LATE SMT. SANNAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.17(A) TO 17(D) ARE RESIDING AT KALISSANAHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 019. RESPONDENT NO.S 1 TO 17 ARE RESIDING AT KALISIDDANAHUNDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 019. 18. SRI JAVEGOWDA @ MARADIHUNDI JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O. SRI ANCHANAHALLI CHIKKAHYDAPPA RESIDING AT KALISIDDANAHUNDI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 019. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 19. SRI H. M. SRIKANTHA S/O. SRI MAHABALESHWARA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.1497 2ND MAIN 5TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA MYSURU - 570 017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.BYREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3, R4(A TO C) R5 TO R8, R9(A TO C), R10, R11, R15(A), R16 (A), R17(A) AND (C); R9(B) AND (C) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R9 (A) R17(B) IS DEAD AND R17(A) AND (C) ARE HIS LRS. VIDE ORDER DATED 30.04.2026) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.5019/2016 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.203/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SRIRANGAPATNA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2021 passed in R.A.No.5019/2016 by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapattana), confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2016 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 passed in O.S.No.203/2006 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs. 2. Parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule properties. The said suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court in R.A.No.5019/2016. However, the appeal was dismissed by the first Appellate Court, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 5. Aggrieved by which, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this second appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 6. The appellants and respondents have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC stating that with the intervention of well-wishers and friends, they have amicably settled the dispute among themselves by entering into a written settlement, the terms of which are incorporated in the compromise petition. The parties have agreed to share the properties in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The said compromise petition was filed before the Registry on 28.04.2026. 7. It is stated that General Power of Attorney has been executed by appellant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in favour of appellant No.3; by appellant Nos.5(c) to 5(g) in favour of appellant No.5(a); by appellant Nos.6 and 7 in favour of appellant No.8; respondent Nos.2 and 4(a) in favour of respondent No.3; by respondent Nos.4(b), 4(c), 5 and 6 in favour of respondent No.3; by respondent Nos.8, 9(a) and 10 in favour of respondent No.7, by respondent Nos.11, 13, 14 and 15(a) in favour of respondent No.12; and by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 respondent Nos.16, 17(a) and 17(c) in favour of respondent No.12. 8. 8. The respective parties along with the power of attorney holders of the appellants and respondents, are physically present before the Court. The compromise petition is signed by the respective parties and their power of attorney holders. The parties have divided the suit schedule properties among themselves by allotting specific shares, which are clearly described in the compromise petition executed by them. 9. It is also stated that the compromise petition shall form part of this judgment and decree. The parties, who are physically present before this Court, including those represented through power of attorney holders, were enquired by the Court and they have affirmed that the properties have been divided in terms of the compromise. 10. The parties submit that the compromise has been executed voluntarily, without any force, fraud or undue - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 influence. They further submit that they are in respective possession of the properties allotted to them, which have been divided and segregated in terms of the compromise petition. 11. It is also submitted that the parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise petition. The General Power of Attorney documents are annexed to the compromise petition and photocopies of the same are also produced. The originals have been placed before the Court for verification and the same is duly verified. In view of the compromise petition executed by the parties hereinabove and their having affixed their signatures thereto, the same is taken on record. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise petition; - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 ii. The judgment and decree dated 29.09.2021 passed in R.A.No.5019/2016 by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapattana) shall stand modified in accordance with the compromise petition filed by the parties to the proceedings; iii. In view of the parties having amicably settled the matter, the appellants–plaintiffs shall be entitled to a refund of the Court fee in terms of Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The Court fee shall be transmitted to the account of the appellants–plaintiffs upon furnishing the relevant Bank details, including IFSC code upon proper verification; iv. Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24529 RSA No. 80 of 2022 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2