IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2020 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

SRI B P MUKUNDA REDDY S/O LATE PAPANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.187, 8TH CROSS BELLANDUR VILLAGE AND POST BENGALURU-560 103.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. V. SHASHI KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI B P BABU REDDY S/O LATE PAPANNA REDDY Digitally AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS signed by RUPA V Location: 2. SMT. GANGOJAMMA @ GAYATHRI High Court W/O B P BABU REDDY Of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.9, GROUND FLOOR SRINIVASA DIAMOND APARTMENTS BELLANDUR MAIN ROAD BELLANDUR VILLAGE AND POST BENGALURU-560 103.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S. K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE

1 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.09.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.7383/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2019 passed in O.S.No.7383/2013 by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the parties have settled the matter and they have filed compromise petition, which reads as under:

"1. That the Plaintiff/Appellant herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.7383/2013 before the 1st Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru (CCH-2), against the Defendant-1/Respondent No.1 herein for the relief of Partition and Separate possession of his legitimate share in the suit schedule property.

2. The Plaintiff/Appellant herein is claimed ½ share in the suit schedule property, contending that after the death of father Sri. Papanna Reddy on 28/12/2004 intestate, the Plaintiff/Appellant and Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1 have succeeded to the estate of deceased Papanna Reddy and that they have put up two ACC sheet house and tenanted the same and enjoying the rents respectively.

3. The Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1 herein admitting the relationship of parties and acquisition of ownership by the father Papanna Reddy, further contended that, Sri. Papanna Reddy died leaving behind Will dated 03/09/2004, wherein he has bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of his wife Smt. Gayathri @ Gangojamma.

4. That Smt. Gayathri @ Gangojamma was impleaded as Defendant No.2/Respondent No.2 herein and she claimed ownership over the suit schedule property, based on the aforesaid Will dated

03/09/2024 of late. Papanna Reddy.

5. The suit in O.S.No. 7383/2012 came to be dismissed as per judgment and decree dated 21/09/2019, passed by the 1st Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru (CCH-2), by opining that the Defendant No.2/Respondent No.2 herein has become owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the will dated 03/09/2004 and as such plaintiff is not entitled for ½ share in the suit schedule property. The present appeal is filed challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 21/09/2019 passed in O.S.No.7383/2012.

6. The subject matter of the dispute is property bearing No.16 and 17, Katha No.143/3, situated at Doddanekkundi Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, now East Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 60 feet in all measuring 1800 square feet consisting of two A.C.C. sheet roof house measuring 12 x 16 feet each and bounded on the East by Property of Ajit and Balan now Abhinav, West by 20 feet Road, North by Property of Mukund Reddy and South by 30 feet Road, which is described as Schedule Property to this compromise petition.

7. At the intervention of t