I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30” DAY OF MARCH 2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS RFA No.1124/2005 BETWEEN: Smt. Say itn W/o.late Venkappa Talikoti Age: about 49 years. 0cc: Household, RIo .Joshigalli, Veerangouder Building. Ilkal 587125, Tq: Hungund, Dist: Bagalkot. ...APPELLANT (By Sri. F.V.Patil, Advocate.) AND: 1. Smt.Shavamma W/o.late Rudrappa Talikoti Age: about 73 years, 0cc: Agriculture. R/at: Tavergeri 584 131. Tq: Kustagi, Dist: Koppal. Since deceased, by L.R. la. Sridharappa s/o.late Rudrappa Talikoti Age: Major, 6’ 2 R/at: Tavergeri-584 131, Tq: Kustagi, Dist: Koppal. 2. Smt.Manjula D/o.Sridharappa Talikoti Age: about 25 years, R/at: Tavergeri-584 131 Tq: Kustagi, Dist: Koppal. 3. State Bank of Hyderabad Bijapur, Represented by its Branch Manager, Bijapur-586 101. 4. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Region-Ill, Zonal Office, P.B.No.48, Super Market-585 101, Gulbarga. 5. Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gun foundry, Hyderabad, A.P. 6. Vecreshwar S/o.Sridharappa Talikoti Age: 28 years, 0cc: Business & Agriculture, R/o.Tavargera-584 131, Tq: Kushtagi, Dist: Koppal. .RESPONDENTS (By Sri.B.Sharana Basawa, Advocate, for R.1A and R.2.) Sri.M.G.Naganuri, Advocate, for R.2.) Sri.V.A.Byatnal, Advocate, for R.3 to R.5.) Sri.M.G.Naganuri, A.B.Patil, and B.Sharanabasawa, Advocate, for impleaded applicant R.6.) This Regular First Appeal is filed U/S.96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated ‘Qy 3 1/7/2005 passed in O.S.No.21/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Koppal, decreeing the suit filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein for partition and separate possession. This Appeal coming on for Final Hearing this day, K.L.Manjunath, J, delivered the following jugmnt: JUDGMENT I.A.No.7/2008 is filed to implead one Veereshwar S/o.Shridharappa Talikoti to come on record as legatee of the deceased 1st respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondents I and 2 have no objection to allow the application. 2. Accordingly, I.A.No.7/2008 is allowed. The learned counsel for the appellant to carryout the amendment. 3. The remaining applications and miscellaneous petitions are dismissed as not pressed. & 4 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents No.1 and 2 submit that the appeal filed against the respondents No.3 to 5 may be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, the appeal filed against the respondents No.3 to 5 is dismissed as not pressed, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents No.1 and 2. The learned counsel for the appellant to carryout the amendment. 5. Today the parties have filed a compromise petition and the same is taken on record. It is signed by the appellant, Shridharappa Talikoti, who is the respondent No.1(a) and also legatee of respondent Veereshwar and the 2nd respondent Manjula. They are present before the Court. They have been identified by the respective advocates. They admit the execution of the compromise petition. 6. According to the compromise petition, the parties admit that the 2nd respondent Manjula who is the plaintiff No.2 as not the daughter of late Venkappa and the appellant Savitri and she is the S 5 natural daughter of Shridharappa Talikoti who is the legal representative of deceased respondent No.1 and they request the Court to reverse the findings of the trial Court in regard to the status of the 2” respondent/2nd plaintiff Manjula. Accordingly, it is hereby declared that she is not the daughter of Venkappa and Smt.Savitri and that she is the natural daughter of Shridharappa Talikoti and his wife Smt.Vijayalakshmi Q Lakshmi. 7. The parties have also divided the properties equally between the appellant and the legatee of the deceased lt respondent Veereshwar and they have taken possession of the respective shares allotted to them. The details of the properties allotted to Veereshwar and the appellant Savitri are described in the compromise petition. 8. In view of the compromise petition, the appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise petition. The Registry is directed to draw final decree in terms of the compromise petition. 6 0. In view of the Iindin of the Court that the r sponclen t/ 2u plo in tiff M anj ula is not the cia ugh i e r of V en ka pp a a n ci S a vi t r i a ri ci fu rt her cieclarin that she is the daughter of Shridharappa Talikoti and Srnt.Vijavalakshmi i Lakshrni. she is rntitlcci to get the corrections made in all the rucorci s including the SSLC marks card a nd also before the karnataka State Bar Council where she has been enrolled as an Advocate stating that she is the daughter of Shriciharappa Talikoti and Srnt. \iijavalakshmi 1i Lakshmi. On production of this decree the authorities shall effect necessary changes in regard to her pare n tal status. 10 Ac cordingh, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is modihecl in terms of the compromise petition. sal 3UDG M r k, - JUDGE