Disposed

Sri K S Satyanarayana v. Sri Lingaiah

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2022RFA/376/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka considered two RFA appeals filed under Section 96 of CPC regarding a suit for declaration and injunction. A joint compromise petition signed by all parties was presented. The Court verified there was no coercion or undue influence and disposed of both appeals based on the terms of the compromise petition.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of RFA No. 444/2006 and RFA No. 376/2006 in terms of the joint compromise petition; direction to pass a decree appending the compromise.

Sri K S Satyanarayana Vs Sri Lingaiah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶6

R.F.A.No.444/2006(DEC)

¶7

C/W

¶8

R.F.A.NO.376/2006(DEC)

¶9

IN R.F.A.NO.444/2006

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

SRI LINGAIAH

¶12

S/O. LATE ANNE GOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶13

1(a) SMT.PUTTALINGAMMA, 60 YEARS

¶14

W/O LATE LINGAIAH

¶15

1(b) SMT.RENUKA.B AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O GANGA HONNAIAH

¶16

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.687, 1^ST MAIN 2^ND CROSS, NEW BINNY LAYOUT BANGALORE -560 023

¶17

...APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI M ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

AND

¶21

K S SATYANARAYANA S/O. SHANKARANARAYANA SASTRY HINDU, MAJOR NO.289/A, 12^TH CROSS 8^TH MAIN, II BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011

¶22

...RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI H N PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:17.10.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6447/1980 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶25

IN R.F.A.NO.376/2006

¶26

BETWEEN

¶27

SRI K S SATHYANARAYANA S/O.SHANKARANARAYANA SASHTRY AGED ABOUT YEARS NO.289/8, 12^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI H N PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND

¶31

1 . SRI LINGAIAH S/O. LATE ANNE GOWDA

¶32

¶33

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶34

1(a) SMT.PUTTALINGAMMA, 60 YEARS

¶35

W/O LATE LINGAIAH

¶36

1(b) SMT.RENUKA.B AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O GANGA HONNAIAH

¶37

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.687, 1^ST MAIN 2^ND CROSS, NEW BINNY LAYOUT BANGALORE -560 023

¶38

2 . THE BINNY MILLS LAYOUT ASSOCIATION HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.14, MADURAI MUDALIAR ROAD, BANGALORE-53.

¶39

...RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI M.ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (a AND b); SRI V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶41

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED:17.10.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6447/1980 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶42

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Case called out in the afternoon session.

¶45

¶46

A joint application/compromise petition is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC signed by the parties and their respective counsel.

¶47

The contents of the compromise petition is read out to the parties and explained to them in the Kannada language. Parties submit that they have understood the contents of the compromise petition and depicts the true terms of settlement. There is no force, undue influence or coercion in reaching out the compromise terms. Accordingly, there is no impediment for this court to dispose of the appeals in terms of the compromise petition.

¶48

Hence, the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

Appeals are disposed of in terms of the

¶51

compromise petition.

¶52

¶53

Office is directed to pass a suitable decree in terms

¶54

of the joint application/compromise petition appending the copy of compromise petition as part of the decree.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

SBN

Sri K S Satyanarayana v. Sri Lingaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Satyanarayana v. Sri Lingaiah

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

M/S Lilly Labels Vs Sajawat Industries Limited

Sri Ravikumar Vs Sri C K Lavakumar

Karnataka Tamil Christian Welfare Association Vs Rev. Bernard Moras

Ramesha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Sumithra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagajeevan Ram Vidya Samsthe Vs Panchajanya Vidya Peeta Welfare Trust