Disposed

Gopal Reddy N v. B. Mohan

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2021RSA/509/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the regular second appeal filed by the appellant challenging the dismissal of his suit. The court accepted a joint memo stating that a compromise petition had been filed settling the subject matter of the suit. Consequently, the appeal was set aside and disposed of in terms of the compromise.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal (RSA No.509/2016) is disposed of in terms of paragraphs 15 and 26 of the compromise petition filed in OS Nos. 823/2007 and 825/2007. Registry to draw the decree as per the co

Gopal Reddy N Vs B. Mohan — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶6

R.S.A. No.509/2016 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GOPAL REDDY N., S/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A NO.434, 14^TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 030.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.NARAYANA RAO H.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RAJESWRA P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

B.MOHAN, S/O BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/A NO.24, V CROSS, NANJAPPA LAYOUT, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 030.

¶13

MANJUNATH, S/O BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.24, V CROSS, NANJAPPA LAYOUT, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 030.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.S.AISHWARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶15

¶16

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 29.01.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.331/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SITTING AT ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.06.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1040/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL.

¶17

THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the

¶20

judgment and decree dated 29.01.2016 passed in Regular Appeal No.331/2012 by the III Additional

¶21

District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Anekal, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2012 passed in

¶22

OS No.1040/2007 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have filed a joint memo dated 20.04.2021 stating that the parties have already filed a compromise petition in OS Nos. 823/2007 and 825/2007 in respect of the subject matter of the suit

¶24

¶25

schedule property. Accordingly, the judgments and decree passed by the trial Court and First Appellate Court in OS No.1040/2007 and Regular Appeal No.331/2012 may be set aside.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Narayana Rao.H.R. submits that at paragraphs 15 and 26 of the compromise petition in OS No.823/2007 connected with OS No.825/2007, would clearly fortify the contentions of the parties and as such, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to dispose of the appeal. Relevant portion, evidencing the compromise between the parties, reads as under:

¶27

“15. That view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the defendant No.1Sri.Gopal Reddy is hereby declared as absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 8 guntas out of 5 acres 22 guntas in Survey.No.13 of Rayasandra Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, which is more fully described hereunder and

¶28

¶29

referred to as ‘D” schedule property to this compromise petition.

¶30

16 to 25 xxx xxx xxx

¶31

26. That the defendant No.1 had filed a suit in OS No.1040/2007 for the relief of declaration and for other reliefs against the defendants No.2 and 3 herein, which came to be dismissed, against which RA No.331/2012 was filed which also dismissed and now the matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RSA No.509/2016 pertains to the subject matter of O.S.No.1040/2007. Now, in view of the full and final settlement arrived between the parties, the defendants No.2 & 3 shall have no objections to set aside the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.1040/2007 & R.A.No.331/2012 and to dispose of the R.S.A.No.509/2016 in terms of this settlement. Similarly, since there was already a partition and full and final settlement among the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 herein, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.823/2007 namely Smt.G.Girija & G.

¶32

¶33

Netravathi i.e. the daughters of defendant No.1 shall have no any kind of right, title, share claim whatsoever in respect of the other properties belongs to defendant No.1, his wife and son and they shall not make any further claim against their father, mother and brother.”

¶34

In view of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties, joint memo dated 20.04.2021 is accepted and the regular second appeal is disposed of in terms of paragraphs 15 and 26 of the compromise petition passed in OS No.823/2007 connected with OS No.825/2007.

¶35

Registry to draw the decree in terms of the compromise petition filed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

SB

Gopal Reddy N v. B. Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Reddy N v. B. Mohan

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

Ameenabee W/O Kothnur Mohideen, Vs Sri Basha Sab

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Vs C K Manjula

Rajegowda Vs Laxmamma

Sri Prithvi Vs Sri K Sadananda Upadhyaya

Anjaleena Vs Tereza Fernandes

R Veeresh Vs Smt Rajeshwari