AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This is a peculiar appeal arising out of the judgment and decree passed by this court dated 24.3.2008 in TOS No. 2/2007.
Mr. H.S. Rama Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is a mistake in the proper description of the name of the husband of the second appellant in the cause title that it is wrongly described as the wife of Thippa Reddy whereas actually the second appellant is the wife of Sri Narayana Reddy and prays for permission to correct the cause title. A memo is also filed before the court to this effect.
Submission is noted. Permitted. The Counsel is permitted to carry out the correction to the cause title.
The Testamentary Original Suit which came to be numbered after the respondent''s efforts to probate a will said to have been executed by one Thippa Reddy, who happened to be the paternal uncle of the respondent and the grand-father of the first appellant on the father''s side and the father of the second appellant, who is also the sister of the respondent - the person seeking for probating the will.
The respondent had sought for probating the will dated 30th March, 1964, said to have been executed by Thippa Reddy, be the paternal uncle of the respondent, which was opposed by the present appellants and the testator incidentally being to be the grand-father of the first appellant on his father''s side and father of the second appellant.
It was due to the opposition to the grant of the probate, proceedings had been converted to a testamentary original suit and the matter went to trial and ultimately, the suit had been decreed.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the present appeal by the defendants in the suit.
Having regard to the close family relationship existing among the parties, it was suggested by this court, that the parties instead of litigating amongst themselves and particularly, after having noticed that certain criminal proceedings, had also cropped up among the parties, the parties were advised and counselled, for settling the matter amicably rather than to keep litigating before the court and for such purpose, when a request was made to them by this court initially on 11.9.2009 and again subsequently on 21.10.2009 and on 23.10.2009, the parties took time and with the aid and advice of the respective Counsel, i.e. M/s H.S.Rama Murthy and R.Badrinath, appearing for the appellants and Sri G.Papi Reddy appearing for the respondent, we are very pleased to note that the outcome is an amicable satisfactory settlement of all disputes amongst the parties, including the present appeal.
A Joint Memo reading as under is placed before this court:
Joint Memo
The Appellants have filed this appeal to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 24.3.2008 in T.O.S. No. 2/2007 and such other reliefs. The second appellant is formal party to these proceedings and she is old aged and not in position to move and talk and she may be dispensed to appear before this Hon''ble Court personally and to file this joint memo. After the filing of the above appeal the matter between the parties settled and appellant is hereby with draw the above appeal and respondent is agreed to with draw all the civil/criminal cases pending before the concerned courts with out any terms and conditions.
Wherefore the parties to this appeal pray this Hon''ble court to disposes the above appeal on the terms mentioned as above and in the interest of justice and equity.
The first appellant is in person before us and so also the respondent. We have ascertained from them, as also from their Counsel as to the contents of the Joint Memo and we are fully satisfied that the first appellant the son of the respondent and the respondent have now realised that they should give more importance to their relationship rather than to keep fighting in Courts on the premise of who gets a little more of the property or who gets a little less of the property, that too, a property which belonged to the first appellant''s grand-father and respondent''s paternal uncle and only about the manner of sharing such a person''s property bequeathed under the Will or otherwise.
Though this court has recognised the will and decree stands, the parties have indicated that they are withdrawing the appeal and are not standing on the legal effect of decreeing of the suit, but have even otherwise resolving the disputes among them in the present appeal in an amicable manner and therefore, in substitution of the judgment and decree passed by this court in TOS 2/2007, the settlement in terms of memo may be recorded and the appeal and suit disposed of accordingly.
We also notice that the memo indicates that the existing/other civil/criminal cases between the parties are also being resolved and terminated in terms of the settlement to the satisfaction of the parties.
We place on record our appreciation of the very positive response by the father and son duo and we overlook the presence of the second appellant before the court in person as is suggested in the Joint Memo.
We also place on record our great appreciation of the efforts and persuasions on the part of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, but for whose efforts perhaps the resolution of the present appeal and the disputes amongst the parties could not have been in such a satisfactory manner.
We only wish more of the litigants follow the suit and the parties may be a model example for others. The registry is directed to draw-up a decree in terms of this order and also directed to refund appropriate portion of the court fee to the appellant on an application being made u/s 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and refund, as per the entitlement, is permitted to be made by the Registry. The office is also directed to look into these aspects for purposes of computation of appropriate amount and to guide the registry accordingly.
If the operation of the provisions of Section 66 should result in a refund in favour of the appellants, the registry is directed to draw a cheque in the name of the first appellant and hand over the same through the counsel.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, Misc.Cvl. 8140/2009 does not survive for consideration and consequently Misc.Cvl. 8140/2009 is dismissed.