Disposed

Sri Kuppuswamy v. Sri J Gopalrajan

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2021RFA/1188/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appellate court disposed of an RFA filed under Section 96 CPC filed against a decree for specific performance. The appeal was settled via a compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, wherein the appellant paid the respondent a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 in full and final settlement, and title was recognized to the appellant. The court allowed the petition and disposed o

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of as settled out of court. The appellant is entitled to a refund of the court fee.

Sri Kuppuswamy Vs Sri J Gopalrajan — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶5

R.F.A.No.1188/2009

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI KUPPUSWAMY S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT No.58, 5^TH BLOCK, 6^TH CROSS, CHAMUNDI’S SLUM BANGALORE- 560 010. ...APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI SATISH D J, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI J GOPALRAJAN S/O LATE M JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT No.150, 3^RD MAIN RAMACHANDRAPURAM BANGALORE- 560 021. …RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI H RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶12

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE ORDER DATED:13.10.2009 PASSED IN O.S.No.1603/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

¶13

¶14

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Learned counsel for appellant and respondent

¶17

submits that parties have settled the matter out of court and to that effect, they have filed a compromise petition dated 19-10-2020 under order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC duly signed by the parties

¶18

and attested by their respective counsel.

¶19

The same is taken on record. The terms of

¶20

the compromise petition are as under:

¶21

“Compromise petition under order 23 Rule 3 R/W Section 151 CPC.

¶22

The Parties are settle the dispute as under.

¶23

The above appeal filed by the appellant/defendant had been challenging by the judgment and decree in OS No.1603/2004 dated 13/10/2009 passed by the XI Additional city civil Judge at Bangalore.

¶24

¶25

During the pendency of the above appeal, at the intervention of well-wishers the parties have arrived at a settlement on the following terms:-

¶26

The Appellant/Defendant had paid the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the respondent/Plaintiff in full and final settlement of his claim in respect of the suit schedule property and recognizes the title and possession of the appellant. The respondent/Plaintiff is also accepting and receives the aforesaid amount from the appellant. Out of this transaction the appellant has no claims whatsoever from the respondent in the above said appeal and including the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,60,000/- under the agreement sell dated 23.1.2002.

¶27

The appellant/Defendant is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The respondent had also no objection to the same. The respondent admit they have no right, title or interest in the aforesaid suit schedule property and it belongs to appellant.

¶28

¶29

The respondent have no objection to allow this appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree in OS No.1603/2004 dated 11/10/2009 passed by the XI Additional city civil Judge at Bangalore.

¶30

The respondent has no objection for refund of court fee to the appellant.

¶31

Wherefore, The appellant and Respondent most humbly pray that this Hon’ble court be pleased to draw the decree in terms of this compromise petition and order fro refund of the court fee in favour of appellant in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶32

In view of the same, the appeal is disposed of as settled out of court and in terms of the compromise petition dated 19-10-2020.

¶33

Appellant is entitled for refund of the court fee as permissible under law.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

tsn*

Sri Kuppuswamy v. Sri J Gopalrajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kuppuswamy v. Sri J Gopalrajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Syed Kareem Anjum Vs Sri Rajendra

Sri D Ramanna Vs Smt Narayanamma

S Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagappa Vs Sri Nanjunda Reddy

Nagappa Vs Nanjundaswamy

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Corporation Bank