Disposed

Vasavi Condiments and Food Courts v. Smt. Puttamma

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023RFA/1272/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a joint compromise petition filed by the appellant and respondents in an appeal against an ejectment decree. Satisfied that the settlement was voluntary, the Court disposed of the appeal by modifying the trial court's decree to reflect the agreed lease period and terms.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition by modifying the impugned judgment and decree. Court fees paid by both parties were directed to be refunded.

Vasavi Condiments and Food Courts Vs Smt. Puttamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45430 RFA No. 1272 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1272 OF 2023 (EJE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VASAVI CONDIMENTS AND FOOD COURTS NO.2, OLD MARKET, SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE V.V PURAM, BENGALURU-560 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MRS K S GEETHA SHIVAKUMAR.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. RAMESHA H E., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. PUTTAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶12

1(a) SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY L., S/O LATE LAKSHMI NARASIMHAIAH

¶13

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.313, 25^TH CROSS, 6^TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 082.

¶15

MR NARASIMHA L SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,

¶16

2(a) SMT. CHARITHA .C W/O LATE NARASIMHA L

¶17

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶18

2(b) MASTER CHIRAG N. AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. CHARITHA C, SINCE ATTAIN MAJORITY.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:45430 RFA No. 1272 of 2023

¶21

2(c) KUM. NIDHI.N D/O LATE NARASIMHA.L AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. CHARITHA.C.

¶22

R2(a) to 2(c) ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1861, 4^TH ‘A’ MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE NORTH, GKVK, BENGALURU – 560 065.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. S.V. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-1(a), R-2(a), R-2(b), R-2(c))

¶25

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED: 31.03.2023 PASSED IN OS No. 1862/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.03.2023 passed in O.S.No.1862/2018 by the LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed

¶29

by the respondents – plaintiffs against the appellant – defendant, for ejectment and other reliefs was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondents – plaintiffs against the appellant – defendant.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:45430 RFA No. 1272 of 2023

¶32

Appellant and respondents have filed Joint Memo / Compromise Petition. The said Joint Compromise petition reads as under:

¶33

“ Joint Memo / Compromise Petition filed by the appellant and the respondents under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

¶34

1. The appellant has approached the respondents so as to avoid unwarranted and strenuous litigations between it and the respondents in so far as it relates to ejectment / vacation of the properties in its possession as a tenant and both of them have amicably agreed to resolve the dispute as a result of which both the parties have voluntarily agreed for the following terms:

¶35

2. The appellant concedes that it is a tenant in respect of the properties Ground floor measuring 1218 sq. feet and the first floor measuring 830 sq.ft. of the premises bearing Municipal No.2, Old Municipal No.297, BBMP PID No.50-8-2, situated at Market Road, Sajjan Rao Circle, V.V.Puram, Bangalore – 560 004, (approximate carpet area) together with electrical fittings and bounded on the :-

¶36

EAST BY: Conservancy Lane;

¶37

WEST BY: Market Road;

¶38

NORTH BY: Common passage running East West direction and thereafter property of Kota Kamakshaiah;

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:45430 RFA No. 1272 of 2023

¶41

SOUTH BY: Property of Chennaiah Raju

¶42

on a monthly rent of Rs.1,40,910/- in respect of the ground floor premises and Rs.46,640/- in respect of the first floor premises.

¶43

3. The appellant has agreed to vacate and handover the schedule property to the respondents on or before 31.03.2025 in good and habitable condition, voluntarily and without driving the respondents to sue for execution of the decree for ejectment under the decree passed in the above appeal. The respondents have also agreed to grant appellant time to vacate the schedule properties up to 31.03.2025.

¶44

4. The appellant has agreed to pay the arrears of rent up to-date in a sum of Rs.45,82,582/- in respect of the ground floor of the schedule premises within THREE MONTHS from today i.e., on or before 15-03-2024 and also a sum of Rs.26,07,938/- being the arrears of rent in respect of the first floor premises on or before 15-06-2024.

¶45

5. The appellant and the respondents have agreed that from 1^st December, 2023, total rate of rent in respect for both the premises together shall be at Rs.1,60,000/- and that the appellant shall continue to pay this monthly rents as and when it becomes due i.e., on or before 15^th day of each calendar month, without committing any default in addition to paying the arrears as aforesaid.

¶46

6. It is agreed that a single default in the payment of monthly rents in respect of the schedule

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:45430 RFA No. 1272 of 2023

¶49

property and / or payment of the arrears of rent as aforesaid, would render appellant liable to be evicted forthwith and the respondents are entitled take possession according to law and the appellant shall handover the same without offering any resistance. It is agreed that the respondents would refund by way of Demand Drafts the total advance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- paid by the appellant together in respect of the ground and first floor of the schedule property at the time of appellant vacating the schedule property and upon restoring the premises to its original condition.

¶50

7. The appellant is a proprietary concern of which Smt. K.S. Geetha Shivakumar is the proprietrix and that other than Smt. K.S. Geetha Shivakumar no one else has any right whatsoever to represent the appellant M/s. Vasavi Condiments and Food Courts and continues to be so and it will not change it’s name, status into anything else and also the business that is being carried on.

¶51

8. The appellant shall not sub-let, under-let or in any way part with possession of the schedule property or any portion thereof, and / or create any type of encumbrance including sale of business as a running concern etc., in favour of any third party and induct any third party in whatsoever capacity and undertakes to peacefully handover the vacant possession of the schedule properties to the custody of the respondents as agreed above and within the period without seeking further extension on any pretext whatsoever.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:45430 RFA No. 1272 of 2023

¶54

9. There is no threat or collusion in entering into the compromise and is a voluntary act of the appellant, represented by its Proprietrix.

¶55

10. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

Wherefore, the appellant and the respondents pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to record the terms of the above compromise and pass a modified decree for ejectment of the appellant from the schedule properties in terms hereof and also order for refund of court fee to the appellant in the above appeal and also entire court fee paid by the respondents in the suit, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶57

SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶58

All that piece and parcel of the entire Ground floor & also first floor premises bearing Municipal No.2, Old Municipal No.297, BBMP PID No.50-8-2, situated at Market Road, Sajjan Rao Circle, V.V.Puram, Bangalore 560 004, ground floor measuring 1218 sq.feet, and first floor measuring 830 sq.ft. (approximate carpet area) & together with electrical fittings and bounded on:-

¶59

EAST BY: Conservancy Lane;

¶60

WEST BY: Market Road;

¶61

NORTH BY: Common passage running East-West direction and thereafter property of Kota Kamakshaiah;

¶62

SOUTH BY: Property of Chennaiah Raju”

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:45430 RFA No. 1272 of 2023

¶65

The said Joint Memo / Compromise Petition has been

¶66

duly signed by the appellant and respondents as well as their respective counsel.

¶67

Parties are physically present before the Court and they admit that they have voluntarily executed the Joint Memo / Compromise Petition. All parties have accepted the terms and conditions of the Joint Memo / Compromise Petition and they are identified by their respective counsel.

¶68

Being satisfied with the terms and conditions contained in the Joint Memo / Compromise Petition, the appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo / Compromise Petition by modifying the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and substituting the same with the terms and conditions of the said Joint Memo / Compromise Petition.

¶69

Registry is directed to draw up decree accordingly.

¶70

Registry of this Court is directed to refund the entire (100%) Court fee paid by the appellant on the Memorandum of Appeal back to the appellant, forthwith, without any delay.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC:45430 RFA No. 1272 of 2023

¶73

So also, Registry of the Trial Court is directed to refund the entire (100%) Court fee paid by the plaintiffs on the plaint back to the respondents – plaintiffs immediately upon receipt of a copy

of this order.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7

Vasavi Condiments and Food Courts v. Smt. Puttamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasavi Condiments and Food Courts v. Smt. Puttamma

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

Sri. R.K Rudraradhya Vs Sri. R Rudraradhya

Smt Leelavathi Vs Sri Vinodkumar Choudary

Sri. Muniyappa Vs Sri. Govinda

Sri K Munikrishnappa Vs Smt. Dilshad Begum

Sri Kariyappa H.M. Vs H M Munawar Pasha

G Janardhan Vs Karnataka Prakruthi Chikitsa Prachara Trust