Doddamuniyappa (Dead) Through Lrs. vs Muniswamy

2. The facts in brief culled out and relevant for the present purpose which manifest from the record that Shri Chikkanna 1 (since deceased) was the propositus of the joint family. He had three sons, namely, Pillappa, Venkataramanappa and Muniyappa (respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9). Respondent nos. 1 to 4 and respondent no. 10 are the sons of Pillappa (defendant no. 2) and respondent nos. 5 and 6 are the sons of Shri Venkataramanappa (defendant no. 3).

3. The above named propositus of the joint family Chikkanna purchased the suit schedule property from his sister Thayamma. The genealogy of the family of the respondents (plaintiffs) is as under: ­ Chikkanna (Propositus) Pillappa Venkataramanappa Muniyappa (Def. 2) (Def. 3) (Def. 4) Govindaraja Venkatesha (Plff. 6) (Plff. 7) Chikkanna Muniswamy Ramachandra Srinivasa Nagraja (Plff. No.1) (Plff. 2) (Plff. 3) (Plff. 4) (Plff. 5) 2

4. It could be seen from the genealogy that respondent nos. 1 to 6 and respondent no. 10 are the grandsons of propositus Chikkanna(deceased). The appeal has been preferred by appellant (defendant no. 1) who is a purchaser of the subject property involved in the suit. Respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4), sons of late Chikkanna had jointly sold the suit property in favour of one Muthappa under a sale deed dated 2 nd December, 1950. It was stipulated in the sale deed that in the event of the sale of the suit property by the above named Muthappa, the suit property shall be reconveyance in favour of respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4) at the price offered by the purchaser and on failure of the respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4), the above named Muthappa would be free to sell the suit property to any other purchaser. The property was later purchased under the sale deed dated 30 th September, 1954 by one Muniswamy @ Annaiyappa from whom the appellant purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 29th January, 1962.

7. The matter thereafter proceeded for execution of the decree in Execution No. 121 of 1972 and in sequel to the Order passed in the execution petition, the reconveyance deed was executed by the Court in favour of respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4

8. The appellant (defendant no. 1) filed Execution Appeal No. 2 of 1974 before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore. In Execution Appeal, respondent no. 9(defendant no. 4) with the knowledge of respondent nos. 7 and 8(defendant nos. 2 and 3) entered into a compromise dated 25th March, 1976(Exhibit P­8) with the appellant. The extract of the compromise (Exhibit P­8) entered between the parties is quoted hereunder: ­ “ IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE DISRICT: BANGALORE Ex. Appeal No. 2/1974 Appellant: Doddamuniappa ­Vs­ Respondents: Pillappa and others Under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 107 C.P.C., the appellant and respondents submit that they have compromised the matter as hereunder:

20. The indisputed facts which have come on record are that the subject property was originally purchased by propositus of the family, namely, Chikkanna. After the death of Chikkanna, property devolved into his three sons (respondent nos. 7 to 9­ defendant nos. 2 to 4) who jointly sold the property on 2 nd December, 1950 and the sale deed contained the clause of reconveyance requiring the purchase to reconvey the property in the event of sale. After the appellant (defendant no. 1) purchased the subject property on 29th January, 1962, civil suit was instituted for reconveyance by the sons of propositus Chikkanna in the first instance which was dismissed by the trial Court. On an appeal being preferred by respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendants 12 nos. 2 to 4), the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 27th August, 1969. The second appeal being R.S.A. No. 69 of 1970 preferred by the present appellant (defendant no. 1) before the High Court came to be dismissed, thus, the decree became final. Respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendants nos. 2 to 4) put the decree to execution and a deed of reconveyance was executed and possession of the subject property was restored to respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendants nos. 2 to 4) on 7th March, 1974 and on execution of a decree, it assumed the character of a joint family property in the hands of respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendants nos. 2 to 4).

The appellant and Respondents pray that the appeal may kindly be partly allowed in terms of the above compromise. Parties bear their own costs.

21. It is at the stage of Execution Appeal No. 2 of 1974 preferred at the instance of the appellant (defendant no. 1), the compromise was executed between the parties on 25 th March, 1976 and part of the possession of the subject property was restored to the appellant(defendant no. 1).