Disposed

Papa Reddy v. Guttaiah

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2021RSA/535/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Regular Second Appeal was disposed of based on a compromise petition filed on 21.09.2021. The appellants executed a General Power of Attorney to accept the compromise terms, and the respondent agreed. The court took the petition on record and directed the registry to draw a decree accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Regular Second Appeal No. 535 of 2010 has been disposed of in terms of the compromise petition filed on 21.09.2021.

Papa Reddy Vs Guttaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.535 OF 2010

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PAPA REDDY SINCE DEAD HIS LRS

¶9

1(a) MALLAMMA

¶10

W/O. LATE PAPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶11

P. SUJATHAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶12

2(a) R. NAVITHA W/O S. HARISH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.135, 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095

¶14

2(b) R. NITYA W/O MOHAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A SULIKUNTE VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TQ-560 087.

¶15

VENAKATASWAMY REDDY S/O LATE PAPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶16

¶17

R/A BANAHALLI ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TQ- 562 107.

¶18

P. VIJAYA W/O THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A AJAJ SAIT INDUSTRIAL TOWN NAYANDAHALLI POST MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU- 560 039.

¶19

P. KOMALA W/O JAYARAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A KUGUR VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TQ -562 107.

¶20

P. MUNI REDDY S/O LATE PAPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A BANAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TQ - 562 107. ... APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR , ADVOCATE) AND:

¶22

1 GUTTAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR VENKATASWAMY REDDY S/O LATE GUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/A BANAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TQ - 562 107. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.A. VISHWANATHA REDDY, ADVOCATE )

¶23

¶24

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22^ND DECEMBER, 2009 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.110 OF 2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01^ST APRIL, 2003 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.214 OF 1992 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC., ANEKAL.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Heard, the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶28

During the pendency of this appeal, learned counsel for parties to the appeal have filed compromise petition dated 21.09.2021 under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute as per the terms and conditions stated in the compromise petition. It is also stated by the parties present before the Court that, they have entered into compromise on their own volition, and there is no coercion or force or undue influence while entering into compromise.

¶29

¶30

The appellants herein have executed the General Power of Attorney dated 09.09.2021 in favour of the Appellant No.3 - Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy.P who is present before the Court, accepting the terms and conditions as set out in compromise petition. The said aspect has not been disputed by the other side. Respondent No.2-Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy, S/o late Guttaiah who is present before the Court, has also agreed to the terms and conditions set out in the compromise petition.

¶31

In that view of the matter, the compromise petition is taken on record. Taking into consideration the terms and conditions as stated in the compromise petition dated 21.09.2021, Regular Second Appeal No. 535 of 2010 is disposed of in terms of compromise petition filed along with sketch.

¶32

Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

ARK

Papa Reddy v. Guttaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Papa Reddy v. Guttaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagappa Vs D Mahesha @ Maheshwarappa

Sri. Anand Kumar Vs Sri. Thammanna

Sri Y.S. Vedamurthy Vs Sri. Rajashekaraiah

Sri. Thimmegowda Vs Sri Shivaramu

Papa Reddy Vs Venkataswamy Reddy

Puttarevamma Vs Veerabhadraiah