Allowed

The Commissioner v. Sri. Siddarama

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023RFA/1046/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A regular first appeal was disposed of following a compromise between the appellant municipalities and respondent plaintiffs. The trial court's decree awarding damages for death was modified to reflect the settled sum of Rs 65 Lakhs. The draft was prepared to release funds from an existing deposit.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of, the decree under O.S. 5216/2016 was modified per the compromise, Rs. 65 Lakhs released to respondents, balance deposit released to appellants, and court fee refunded.

The Commissioner Vs Sri. Siddarama — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

RFA No. 1046 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶9

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1046 OF 2019

¶10

BETWEEN :

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU-560 002

¶12

THE ASSISTANT FOREST CONSERVATIVE OFFICER, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE ANNEXURE BUILDING-3 ROOM NO.4 AND 5, N.R.SQUARE BENGALURU-02

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BOTH ARE APPELLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY HEAD OF LEGAL CELL, BBMP SRI K.D.DESHPANDE …APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SHRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND :

¶17

SRI. SIDDARAMA S/O PUTTASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶18

¶19

RFA No. 1046 of 2019

¶20

SMT. PREMA W/O SRI. SIDDARAMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶21

SMT. R.V. ANUPAMA W/O LATE SRI. S. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶22

MASTER ARYAN M S/O LATE S. MANJUNATH SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IS MINOR, REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.3

¶23

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SHRI. G. DESU REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R5)

¶25

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5216/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES/ COMPENSATION.

¶26

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

RFA No. 1046 of 2019

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure,

¶31

1908, by the second and third defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated April 8, 2019 in O.S. No.5216/2016 passed by the XIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.

¶32

For the sake of convenience, parties shall be

¶33

referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

¶34

Heard Shri. K.B. Monesh Kumar, learned Advocate

¶35

for appellants/second and third defendants, Shri. G. Desu Reddy, learned Advocate for respondents/plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and Shri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned AGA for the State.

¶36

4. Plaintiffs have brought the instant suit seeking

¶37

recovery of Rs.1 Crore as compensation on account of death of first plaintiff’s son, Shri. S.Manjunath. Suit has been decreed.

¶38

5. Learned advocates on both sides jointly submit that

¶39

during the pendency of this appeal, parties have settled the dispute amicably and filed an application, I.A. No.1/2023

¶40

¶41

RFA No. 1046 of 2019

¶42

under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and an Affidavit accompanying the application duly signed by both the parties and their respective advocates. Shri. V. Govindaraju, Forest Officer, BBMP is present on behalf of appellants and all the respondents are present. They are identified by their respective Advocates. Parties admit that they have understood the terms of the compromise. They pray that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of settlement recorded in the Affidavit filed along with I.A. No.1/2023. The Affidavit reads as follows:

¶43

“AFFIDAVIT

¶44

We, (a) Sri Tushar Girinath Aged about 53 years The Chief Commissioner BBMP and (b) the Assistant Forest Conservator BBMP, the Appellants herein and represented by duly constituted delegated authority Sri Govinda Raju V., the Assistant Conservator of Forests (South) to act on behalf of the Appellants herein and Siddarama Aged about 67 years S/o Puttasiddaiah, Smt Prema W/o Siddarama, Aged 57 years, Smt R.V Anupama, W/o Late S Manjunath Aged 32 years, Master Aryan S/o Late S Manjunath minor by age and represented by his mother & best friend all residing at No. 1687, 18^th Cross, 21^st Main M.C Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-560 040, the Respondents *1 to 4 to this Appeal being well aware of the facts and circumstances of the Appeal, do solemnly state on oath as under:-

¶45

*Correction carried out vide court order dated 03.11.2023.

¶46

¶47

RFA No. 1046 of 2019

¶48

01. We state that the Respondents 1 to 4 had preferred a suit in O.S. No.5216 of 2016 seeking for damages of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the death one Manjunath S/o first Respondent & second Respondent, Husband and father of the *III & IV Respondents *respectively due a tree falling on the deceased while he was riding a motorcycle.

¶49

02. We state that by judgment & decree dated 08.09.2019, the learned trial judge was pleased to decree the suit by ordering that the Respondents *1 to 4 shall be entitled for damages of Rs.1,00,00,000/ (Rupees One Crore Only). It is this Judgment and Decree that is impugned herein.

¶50

03. We state that upon the directions issued at the hands of this Hon’ble Court to explore the possibility of a settlement, the parties have met and have arrived at a consensus so as to ensure that the dispute/claims between them is resolved once and for all.

¶51

04. We state that as per the terms of the compromise, the Appellants shall pay the sum of Rs.65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-five Lacks Only) to the Respondents *1 to 4 towards full and final satisfaction of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.5216 of 2019 dated 08.04.2019 and the Respondents *1 to 4 have agreed to receive the said amounts as full and final settlement of all claims.

¶52

05. We state that as a matter of fact the Appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- as per the interim order of this Hon’ble Court dated 05.01.2022 and the deposit amounts were ordered to be kept in deposit for two years in the State Bank of India.

¶53

*Corrections carried out vide court order dated 03.11.2023.

¶54

¶55

RFA No. 1046 of 2019

¶56

06. We state from the aforestated deposit the registry be directed to withdraw a sum of Rs 65,00,000/- and hand over the same to the Respondents *1 to 4 in *four equal proportions. The portion of the minor son be ordered to be made over to his mother and next best friend.

¶57

07. We state that the balance amounts available with the registry be and the same be ordered to be handed over to the Appellants herein alongwith the accrued interest from the date of the deposit till actual date of payment to be made to the Appellants. The Respondents *1 to 4 SHALL not have any objections to the same.

¶58

8. We state that upon receipt of the sum of Rs.65,00,000/(Rupees Sixty-Five Lacs Only) the Respondents *1 to 4 admit that they have received all their claims to the last rupee and they SHALL have no claim whatsoever against the appellants for all times to come, the judgment & Decree stand satisfied and the judgment and Decree shall also be modified to the extent and the settlement shall be final and binding upon the parties.

¶59

09. We state that the Registry be directed to refund the entire Court fee made good on this Memorandum of Regular First Appeal to the Appellants in view of the compromise being arrived at.

¶60

10. We state that the by allowing this application by recording this compromise and also by modifying the judgment and decree to the aforestated extent of compromise so arrived no loss or hard shall be caused to either party

¶61

*Corrections carried out vide court order dated 03.11.2023.

¶62

¶63

RFA No. 1046 of 2019

¶64

WHEREFORE , it is most humbly prayed that this Honb'le Court be pleased to direct the registry to transmit a sum of Rs.65,00,000/-in *four equal proportions to the Respondents *1 to 4 as described above, be further pleased to direct the registry to return the balance amounts from the deposit so kept in deposit by the Appellants alongwith interest so accumulated from the date of deposit till the date of disbursal of the amounts to the aforestated extents, alongwith the refund of full court fee and also direct the registry to draw the decree to the aforestated extent of compromise in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶65

An application under Order XXXII Rule 7 of CPC

¶66

has also been filed in respect of respondent No.4. We find that the compromise arrived at between the parties is lawful and accordingly accepted. Order dated April 8, 2019 in

¶67

O.S. No.5216/2016 passed by the XIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, shall stand modified in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties and this appeal is accordingly disposed of .

¶68

The amount in deposit in respect of fourth respondent shall remain in Fixed Deposit till he attains the age of majority. First respondent, who is natural guardian of fourth respondent shall be entitled to receive the interest

¶69

*Corrections carried out vide court order dated 03.11.2023.

¶70

¶71

RFA No. 1046 of 2019

¶72

every quarterly for the benefit of the child. Balance amount in

¶73

the Bank shall be released in favour of BBMP.

¶74

Decree be drawn accordingly. Parties shall bear

¶75

their own costs.

¶76

Registry shall refund the court fee in accordance with law.

¶77

In view of disposal of this appeal, pending interlocutory applications if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

SPS

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2

The Commissioner v. Sri. Siddarama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. Sri. Siddarama

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

National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/S Coromandel Sugars Ltd. Vs the Principal Secretary

Patel Industrial Corporation Vs Sri C Purushotham

Sri M C Vijay Kumar Vs Sri Thomax Xavier

Apple India Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Infosys Ltd.