Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B. Veerappa, Ravi V. Hosmani, JJ.
K.U. POVAIAH – Appellant
Vs.
K. NAMITHA POVAIAH – Respondent
R.F.A. Nos. 1910 of 2013, 12 of 2014, W.P. No. 20148 of 2014
Decided On : 05-03-2021
Compromise Petition - Property Dispute - Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC - S. No. 155/11-B, 123, 114 - The court discussed the compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, which resulted in the bifurcation of the property by metes and bounds, relinquishment of rights, and confirmation of the sale deed. The key legal provisions discussed include Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, which allows for compromise in civil proceedings, and the court's decision was influenced by the voluntary agreement of the parties and the protection of the rights established through the compromise.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and first respondent filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, resulting in the bifurcation of the property, relinquishment of rights, and confirmation of the sale deed. The suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her one-half share in the property was decreed in her favor by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise petition was voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without coercion or influence, and as a result, the appeal and related matters were disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.
Issues: The issues involved the partition and separate possession of the property, the binding nature of the sale deed, and the voluntary agreement of the parties through the compromise petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the voluntary agreement of the parties through the compromise petition, which resulted in the modification of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the disposal of related appeals and petitions.
Final Decision: The appeal and related matters were disposed of in terms of the compromise petition, resulting in the modification of the trial court's judgment and decree, and the disposal of all pending applications and petitions.
JUDGMENT :
B. Veerappa J.
1. The Appellant and First Respondent in RFA No. 1910/2013 filed compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, which reads as under:
(a) The Appellant and First Respondent are the co-owners in respect of the Suit Schedule Property having 50% right, title and interest in the same. The Suit Schedule Property is detailed hereunder in Schedule A for ready reference and is hereinafter referred to as "Schedule A Property"
(b) It is agreed between the parties that the 50% share of the Appellant in the Schedule A property is divided and demarcated by metes and bounds and is more fully detailed hereunder in Schedule B and is hereinafter referred to as "Schedule B Property".
(c) It is agreed between the parties that the 50% share, right, title and interest in Schedule A property of Respondent No. 1 is divided and demarcated by metes and bounds and is more fully detailed hereunder in Schedule C and is hereinafter referred to as "Schedule C Property."
(d) The portion of Schedule A property alienated by the Appellant to the Respondent, KSRTC, vide Registered Sale deed dtd. 28/2/2009 (registered on 6/4/2009) as Document No. 18/2009-10 in Book-1, CD No. VRP D-9 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Virajpet has been accommodated within the share allotted to the Appellant and is more fully detailed hereunder in Schedule D and is hereinafter referred to as "Schedule D Property".
(e) The demarcations agreed to by the parties in respect of the bifurcation of the Schedule A Property and demarcation agreed to between them in this Compromise in respect of Schedule B, C and D are detailed in the sketches for each of the Sy. Nos. 155/11B, 123 and 114 annexed to this Compromise Petition as ANNEXURE-A, B and C respectively, and the sketches shall be read as part and parcel of this Compromise.
2. It is agreed between the Parties herein that by virtue of this compromise, all issues arising between them in respect of the above mentioned matter have been amicably resolved and no party shall have any claim/entitlement hereinafter as against each other, in respect of the Schedule Properties allotted to each Party, as mentioned herein. All amounts paid by the Appellant to the Respondent No. 1 during pendency of the above Appeal as well as proceedings before the Trial Court have been adjusted towards claim of mesne profits and the Appellant shall not be entitled to claim reimbursement from Respondent No. 1 or anybody claiming through or under her. The Respondent No. 1 shall not be entitled to claim any amount towards past or future mesne profits or under any other claim /head in respect of her right, title and interest in the Suit Schedule A Property in any manner whatsoever. It is hereby agreed and confirmed that neither the Appellant nor the 1st Respondent have no claims as against each other.
3. It is hereby agreed by the Parties that the children of the parties herein, namely, K Aditi Povaiah and K. Vidushi Povaiah shall not claim any share in the property falling to the Appellant herein and the first respondent will undertake and shall execute registered Ratification Deed in favour of the Appellant. The said Ratification Deed shall be executed on the date of decree being registered, pursuant to this Compromise Petition. The Appellant herein has paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) as permanent alimony towards the First Respondent and the two daughters, namely Ms. Aditi Povaiah and Ms.Vidushi Povaiah as per the MC order passed in MC No. 2845 /2012, Order dtd. 07/07/2015.
4. The Appellant and First Respondent also own several shares in blue chip companies. The said shares are jointly held in both their n
The court emphasized that a valid family compromise must equitably distribute property rights among heirs, particularly addressing the rights of female members.
Parties may settle disputes amicably through a lawful compromise, which is accepted by the court.
Court recognized a mutual settlement among parties and recorded a decree reflecting the terms agreed upon during the appeal.
The court ruled that joint family properties remain undivided until a final decree is issued, allowing for claims even if previously partitioned properties are involved.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
