The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal filed under Section 96 CPC based on a compromise petition dated 23.04.2021, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur in O.S.No.86/2015.
The judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 in O.S.No.86/2015 are set aside and the appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
RFA NO.1033 OF 2018 (SP)
BETWEEN :
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/O K. KODIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK – 571 429
… APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
2
AND :
RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 ARE R/AT SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK
(BY SRI. S. RAMAKRISHNAN, ADV. FOR R-1 & R-2; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 5.7.2021 APPEAL AGAINST R-3 DISMISSED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.03.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.86/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Sri.K.Vijaykumar, learned counsel for the
appellants has appeared through video conferencing. Appellants have appeared through video conferencing and are duly identified by their advocate.
that he appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2 through video conferencing and submits that he has already filed vakalath on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
way of video conferencing and are duly identified by
their advocate.
4
5
Judge, Maddur in O.S.No.86/2015 is hereby set aside
and the appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise petition.
accordingly.
In the light of the compromise, Registry to refund the Court fee, if the appellants are so entitled, after due verification, in accordance with law.
Sd/JUDGE
MH/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the appeal based on the submitted compromise petition.
Whether to set aside the judgment and decree in the underlying original suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Thayamma W/o Late H. Thimmegowda
Smt. Pramodha D/o Late H. Thimmegowda
Smt. K. Kumari D/o Late H. Thimmegowda
Sri. Raghu S/o Late H. Thimmegowda
Smt. Leela W/o Late Shivakumar
Sri. S. Krishna S/o Biliyiah
M.I. Arab
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
