Disposed

Foundation for Education for All v. Dr B R Naga Roopa

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2022RFA/1536/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A regular first appeal against an eviction decree was disposed of. The High Court accepted a joint memo filed by the parties resolving all disputes, effectively allowing the appeal insofar as the decretal amount and modification were concerned, while upholding the eviction. Court fees were directed to be refunded.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in terms of the joint memo filed by the parties; decree modified; court fee refunded to parties.

Foundation for Education for All Vs Dr B R Naga Roopa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - RFA No. 1536 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1536 OF 2019 (RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION FOR ALL BANGALORE A REGISTERED TRUST HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.F-4, ASHRAYA RESIDENCY BTM LAYOUT 1^ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 068 REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE DR.S. MAHALINGAM

¶11

Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶12

DR. S. MAHALINGAM S/O LATE SRI. V. SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING TRUSTEE OF FOUNDATION OF EDUCATION FOR ALL BANGALORE R/O NO.250/333, ASHRAYA RESIDENCY III CROSS, BTM LAYOUT 1^ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 068 …APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SHRI. B.J. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

DR. B.R. NAGA ROOPA W/O LATE SRI. M.S. MURTHY AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT NO.152, HUNGRY HARBOUR ROAD NORTH WOOD MERE NEW YORK 11581, USA REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI. NAGA MOHAN S/O LATE SRI. B.N. RANGASWAMY

¶16

2 - RFA No. 1536 of 2019

¶17

AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.824, 37^TH CROSS 4^TH 'T' CLOCK, JAYANAGARA BANGALORE-560 041 …RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SHRI. H.S. DWARAKANATH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION XLI RULE1 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO. 8489/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶20

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal by defendants No.1 & 2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019 in O.S.No.8489/2015 passed by LXI City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. The suit filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction has been decreed.

¶23

Parties shall be referred as per their status in the trial Court.

¶24

Heard Shri B.J.Mahesh, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri H.S.Dwarakanath, learned advocate for the respondent.

¶25

3 - RFA No. 1536 of 2019

¶26

Second appellant Dr.S.Mahalingam, the

¶27

Managing Trustee of first appellant-Foundation is

¶28

present in Court and he is identified by his advocate Shri B.J.Mahesh.

¶29

Shri Arun Kumar, GPA holder of the

¶30

respondent is present in Court and he is identified by his advocate Shri H.S.Dwarakanath.

¶31

Learned advocates on both sides jointly

¶32

submit that during the pendency of this appeal, parties have amicably resolved the dispute and accordingly, they have filed a Joint Memo of even date. Both the parties admit the contents of the Joint Memo. They pray that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo.

¶33

The Joint Memo reads as follows:

¶34

" The Appellant and Respondent begs to submit as follows:

¶35

1. The respondents does not insist on payment of the decretal amount of

¶36

4 - RFA No. 1536 of 2019

¶37

Rs.49,75,000/(Rupees Forty nine lakhs seventy five thousand only).

¶38

2. The appeal filed by the appellants insofar as the amount decreed may be allowed.

¶39

3. The appellant undertakes to remove and take possession of all the materials which were seized under a mahazar while executing the decree for possession on or before 30^th of December 2022.

¶40

4. If the appellant does not remove the materials mentioned in the mahazar drawn on the date of executing delivery warrant, the respondent shall be entitled to discard the same and the appellants shall not have any right to claim the materials which were seized.

¶41

5. The judgment and decree insofar as eviction is concerned is perfectly valid and the appellants confirms that the Respondent has already taken possession of the suit schedule property in accordance with law.

¶42

6. The parties do here by confirm that they have no claims whatsoever against each other.

¶43

7. The Court fee paid may kindly be ordered to be refunded."

¶44

5 - RFA No. 1536 of 2019

¶45

In our opinion, the terms contained in the

¶46

Joint Memo are lawful and hence accepted. The judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019 in O.S.No.8489/2015 passed by LXI City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City shall stand modified in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶47

Parties shall bear their own costs. Decree be drawn accordingly.

¶48

Registry shall refund the court fee in accordance with law.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Foundation for Education for All v. Dr B R Naga Roopa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Foundation for Education for All v. Dr B R Naga Roopa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Jayanth @ Ritwik Vs Sri B N Vijaya Kumar

Sri. P. Ramaiah Vs Sri. Shamanna

Smt Savithramma Vs Sri Vikas Kumar

Sri v P Nanjappa Vs Sri B Suryaprasad Hegde

Smt. B N Vasantha Vs Ms B S Akshatha

Mrs Veena S Prabhu Vs Mr Sriranjan P