Allowed

K.Sreedhara Reddy v. Smt.Vimala Clement

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2021RFA/530/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal was disposed of as compromised. The court accepted a mutual compromise petition signed by both parties, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree in the original suit, which consequently stood dismissed. In view of this disposal, two inter-process applications did not survive for consideration.

What did the court decide?

The Regular First Appeal was disposed of as compromised; the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the original suit was dismissed.

K.Sreedhara Reddy Vs Smt.Vimala Clement — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

R.F.A. No. 530 OF 2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K.SREEDHARA REDDY S/O H KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.823, HOODI, RAJAPALYA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 048.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI P.D.SURANA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . SMT.VIMALA CLEMENT W/O MR CLEMENT BARNABAS, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.49, SRINATH RESIDENCE II , ADALAJ-0382421 GANGAHINAGAR GUJARAT

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER, SMT MARY KALPANA JOSTNA, D/O N C BARNABAS, RESIDING AT NO.58, 4^TH A CROSS, KANAKANAGARA, R T NAGAR POST,

RFA.No.530/2015

BANGALORE-560 032.

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR C FOR SRI B.V.MALLA REDDY , ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.3.2015 PASSED IN O.S. NO.7571/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-27) BENGALURU IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Learned counsel from both side are physically present.

¶22

The appellant and the General Power of Attorney holder of the respondent, as identified by their respective counsels, are also physically present in the Court.

¶23

Both side have filed a joint memo under Order XXIII

¶24

Rule 3, C.P.C. reporting a compromise between themselves duly signed by their respective advocates. Registry has verified and scrutinized the said petition and has not raised

¶25

RFA.No.530/2015

¶26

¶27

any objection. As such, the compromise petition can be proceeded with.

¶28

After narrating certain aspects which are to the exclusive knowledge of the parties, both the parties have prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2015 passed in O.S. No.7571/2011 which is impugned in this appeal. Learned counsel from both side also submit that the parties have understood the consequences and have entered into the compromise from their free consent and out of their own volition. Both the parties have been enquired and they submit and pray for dismissal of the judgment and decree which is impugned in this appeal. Thus, this Court is convinced that the parties have compromised the matter in their mutual and best interest.

¶29

In the light of the above, considering the terms of the compromise, suffice to say that setting aside the impugned judgment and decree can alone be accepted as the compromise entered into between the parties. As such, the

¶30

RFA.No.530/2015

¶31

¶32

compromise petition confining to the prayer of setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.03.2015 passed in O.S. No.7571/2011 is allowed and the said judgment and decree stands set aside. Consequently, the original suit stands dismissed.

¶33

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of as

¶34

compromised. In view of the disposal of the main appeal as compromised, I.A. Nos.1/2015 and 2/2015 do not survive for consideration.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

vgh*

K.Sreedhara Reddy v. Smt.Vimala Clement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sreedhara Reddy v. Smt.Vimala Clement

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

Smt Jayalakshmamma Vs Smt Lakkamma Since Deceased by Her Lrs

Sri N Venkatesh Vs Munichinnamma

Sri C Manjunath Vs Shri Raghavendra

Sri. Keshava Murthy Vs Smt. R Savithri

Mr Mohan Anandan Vs Nil

Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka