Partly allowed

Sri R Venkatesh v. P Manjunath

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2021WP/63250/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, on a reference to mediation, records a settlement agreement between petitioner defendants and respondent plaintiff regarding the sale of suit property. The Writ Petition and the underlying civil suit were disposed of based on this compromise.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and the civil suit (O.S.No.8659/2012) were disposed of in terms of the settlement agreement; the Trial Court is directed to draw a decree, and court fees are to be refunded.

Sri R Venkatesh Vs P Manjunath — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.63250 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. R. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMAIAH,

¶7

SMT. RAMALAKSHAMMA (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS, LAKSHMAMMA BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT) AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAMAIAH, BOTH TOGETHER RESIDING AT NO.10/9, 1^ST MAIN, III CROSS, MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET, BYTARAYANAPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560026.

¶8

...PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. ANANTHARAM G.R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

P. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O SHRI H.N. PUTTE GOWDA, R/A NO.483, 4^TH "B" CROSS, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. (BY SRI. MALLINATH S. MAKA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.8659/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND HAVING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2016 UNDER ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE LEARNED LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AND HAVING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, WRONGLY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.V FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed challenging an Order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and having concurrent charge of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as the Trial Court) in O.S.No.8659/2012, by which an application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected.

¶18

During pendency of this writ petition, this Court found the possibility of settlement between the parties and therefore, referred the case for settlement of

¶19

¶20

dispute before the Bengaluru Mediation Centre on 08.11.2021.

¶21

The parties have entered into a settlement before the Bengaluru Mediation Centre and they have filed an agreement evidencing the terms of settlement, which are of as follows;

¶22

II. During the course of mediation the parties have resolved their dispute amicably on the following terms and conditions:

¶23

a) Both the parties have mutually agreed that they shall dispose of the suit schedule property within a period of three months from the date of this agreement at the rate not less than Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Only) per square feet and out of the sale proceeds, both the parties have agreed to share in the ratio of 60:40 i.e., 60% to the petitioners/defendants and 40% to the respondent/plaintiff herein.

¶24

b) Both the parties have mutually agreed that they shall cooperate fully with each other and try to get a prospective purchaser for the sale of the suit schedule property and the minimum rate shall not be lesser than Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven

¶25

¶26

Thousand Only) per square feet. In this regard they shall seek and consult their respective counsels on record for protecting and safeguarding their interest.

¶27

c) Both the parties state that they shall have the Original Suit disposed off in terms of the above said settlement agreement arrived between them in this present Writ Petition.

¶28

d) The parties pray that in view of the aforesaid settlement arrived between them entire Court Fee paid in the Original Suit may kindly be refunded to the plaintiff/respondent herein.

¶29

e) The parties state that except their shares stated above they have no other claims against each other in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶30

f) The parties state and agree that they have arrived at this settlement voluntarily out of their own free volition without any force, coercion, threat or undue influence whatsoever.

¶31

g) Both parties shall participate in the sale process including execution of sale deed if the sale is on the account of either parties, the other party shall join execution of sale deed as confirming party or as a consenting witness/s.

¶32

¶33

III . In view of the aforesaid agreement entered between the parties hereto, the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass necessary orders, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

III. Parties have agreed to move the Hon'ble Court for reporting settlement for passing necessary orders in terms of the agreement."

¶35

Since the settlement entered into between the parties is just and proper, the same is accepted.

¶36

Consequently, this writ petition as well as suit filed in O.S.No.8659/2012 pending trial before the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and having concurrent charge of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru are disposed off in terms of this compromise.

¶37

The Trial Court is directed to draw a decree in terms of the compromise.

¶38

¶39

The Court fee paid before the Trial Court shall be

¶40

refunded in accordance with law.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

NBM

Sri R Venkatesh v. P Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Venkatesh v. P Manjunath

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 Jayamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Swamy Gowda Vs v.Narayanappa

Sri. Mahesh M Vs Smt. Shivarathna S

Sri P C Mallappa Vs Smt Chowdamma

M Mahadevappa Vs Smt. B S Rajeshwari

Late Smt Revamma Vs Sri Hanumantharayappa