IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA R.F.A.No. 10 16/2007 (DEC & PAR) BETWEEN: SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O YALLAPPA HIRAGANNAVAR HIRAGAPPANAVAR, (MAN DIGANAL), AGE: 53 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O GUDAGERI, TQ: KUNDGOL. APPELLANT (By Sri. MAHANTESH PATIL FOR SRI S.Y.SHIVALLI, ADV.)) AND: SMT. NINGAVVA (GANGAVVA) W/O SHEKAPPA, DANAMMANAVAR, AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O GUDENAKATTI, TQ: KUNDGOL. RESPONDENT (By Sri. MANJUNATH MELED, ADV.) THIS RFA FILED U/S 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.H3/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HUBLI, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, INJUNCTION AND PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMiSSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This Court while considering this appeal for admission on 02.07.2007 had taken into consideration the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. Thereafter, a finding was rendered by the order dated 02.07.2007 that there is no merit in the appeal. However, at that stage, since the learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the appellant would purchase the share of the plaintiff by way of compromise, notice was issued by this Court to the respondent. 2. When the matter stood thus, when it was listed on 31.03.2010, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted to this Court that there is no settlement between the parties and the proposal put forth by the appellant is not acceptable. The said contention was accepted by this Court and the offer was stated to have been rejected. 3. In view of the above, keeping in view the finding rendered on 02.07.2007, this appeal is held as being devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE gab/ ct-byg