Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 23061
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.2021/2019
BETWEEN:
SMT. K.VEENA NATARAJ,
W/O MR. NATARAJ M.R.,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
#562, SRI. SRINIVASA NILAYA,
2ND CROSS, MUTHYALANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 054.
... APPELLANT
[BY SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE]
AND:
MR. SHASHIKANTHA,
S/O S.V.KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.335, SRI GURU HARIHARA NILAYA,
2ND STAGE, 5TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK,
NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU-560 072.
... RESPONDENT
[BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA G., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE C/R IN (CP 1512/2019)]
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W
ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
07.01.2019 PASSED ON A I.A.NO.2 IN P AND SC NO.153/2018 ON THE
FILE OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7
RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC.
- 2 -
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
A compromise petition filed by the parties to a dispute may be approved by the court if it is found to be lawful and accepted.
Headnote:
COMPROMISE - PROBATE - REVOCATION - [The court approved the compromise petition filed by the parties, disposing of the appeal in terms of the settlement stated in the petition.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the respondent's sister, had filed an application seeking revocation of the Probate Letter issued by the Trial Court in P & SC No.412/2017. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties amicably resolved the dispute and filed a Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise arrived at between the parties was lawful and accepted.
Issues: Whether the compromise petition filed by the parties should be approved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compromise petition was lawful and accepted, and that the appeal should be disposed of in terms of the settlement stated in the petition.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise petition, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.01.2019
passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read
with Section 151 of CPC in P & SC No.153/2018 by XIX
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-18).
2.
Appellant
herein
had
filed
an
application
seeking
revocation of the Probate Letter issued by the Trial Court in P &
SC No.412/2017. The appellant is respondent’s sister. Parties
have filed a Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of
CPC.
3.
Heard Mr. Anoop Haranahalli, learned advocate for the
appellant and Smt. G. Pushpalatha, learned advocate for the
respondent.
4.
Smt. K. Veena Nataraj, appellant and Sri. Shashikantha,
respondent are present in Court and they are identified by their
respective advocates.
5.
Learned advocates on both sides jointly submit that during
the pendency of the appeal, parties have amicably resolved the
dispute. The compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read
with Section 89 of CPC duly signed by the appellant, respondent
- 3 -
and their respective advocates has been filed. Appellant has
agreed to receive a sum of Rs.3.50 Lakhs by way of three
demand drafts i) D.D. bearing No.185019 dated 04.01.2023 for
Rs.69,731/-; ii) D.D. bearing No.179541 dated 19.11.2022 for
Rs.60,269/- and iii) D.D. bearing No.178943 dated 02.11.2022
for Rs.2,20,000/- in her favour as full and final settlement of her
claim. Parties agree that they have understood the terms of the
compromise. They pray that this appeal be disposed of in terms
of settlement stated in the compromise petition.
6.
The terms of compromise read as follows:
"MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER
ORDER XXIII RULE 3 R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908
1.
At the outset it is submitted that the parties shall be
referred to in the present Compromise Petition by their ranks
in the Regular First Appeal for the purpose of clear
understanding of the summary description of the past and the
present legal proceedings culminating in the Compromise
Petition is narrated in short.
2.
The Appellant had filed the above R.F.A. challenging
the probate of the will duly issued by XIX Additional City Civil
&Sessions Judge (CCH No.18), Bangalore in P &SC 412 of
2017 dated 29th November 2017as contemplated under
Section 289 of the Schedule VI of the Indian Succession Act
1925 issued in favour of the Respondent.
3.
The Mother of the Appellant and Respondent Smt. Late
R. Suvarna was a Government School Teacher and she was a
pensioner. Her pension used to get credited in Account
No.54021765613 of State Bank of Mysore, Rajajinagar 1st
Block, Bangalore-560010 (After Amalgamation i.e., from 1st
April 2017 it is called as State Bank of India). The amount
credited in the Pension Account as on 25.09.2022 is
Rs.2,78,923 (Two lakhs Seventy Eight thousand Nine
Hundred and twenty three Rupees only). During her service
she had purchased the site measuring 30 x 40 bearing
No.335 situated at 5th Main, 9thBlock, Nagarabhavi II Stage,
- 4 -
Bangalore – 560072, East by Site No.303, West by Road,
North by Site No.334 and South by site No.336 in the year
1988 for valuable consideration (more fully described here
under
and
hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
“Schedule
Property”). On 16.08.2012 Smt. R. Suvarna had executed a
Will in favour of the Respondent. Smt. R. Suvarna passed
away on 14.07.2014.
4.
The Appellant herein after the death of Smt. R.
Suvarna filed as it numbered as O.S.3528/2015 before the
City Civil Court, Bangalore (CCHNo.3) on 16.04.2015 against
the Respondent and other two sisters namely Smt. K.
Poornima and Smt. K. Jyothi seeking for the relief of ¼ share
in the schedule property and sought for partition and
separate possession which was unconditionally withdrawn by
the appellant and hence was subsequently dismissed on
22.07.2016.
5.
The Respondent fil
