Disposed

Sri.a.Munishamy Reddy v. M.Ramaiah

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2023RFA/44/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular First Appeal filed against a trial court decree partially decreeing a suit for specific performance. Parties filed a compromise petition; the Court, after ensuring valid consent, modified the impugned judgment and decree in terms of the compromise regarding compensation apportionment and discharged the stay pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree were modified in terms of the compromise petition. Court fees paid in the appeal and plaint were ordered to be refunded to the appellant.

Sri.a.Munishamy Reddy Vs M.Ramaiah — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42740 RFA No. 44 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2016 (SP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI A.MUNISHAMY REDDY S/O APPIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O KARINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI VARADARAJAN M S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

M.RAMAIAH

¶12

SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS LRS

¶13

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. NAVITHA, D/O LAE NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶15

SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶16

PAVITHRA

¶17

D/O LATE NAAMMA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF BELLAPURA VILLAGE, ABBENAHALLI POST, MALUR TALUK - 562160

¶18

SRI. B.R. SRINIVAS S/O AMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:42740 RFA No. 44 of 2016

¶21

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O B.R. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶22

S. NETHRAVATHI D/O B.R. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶23

S .MAMATHA D/O B.R. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶24

S. SHIVAKUMAR S/O B.R. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶25

S. PRASHANTH KUMAR S/O B.R. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 14 YEAS MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER SRI. B.R. SRINIVAS - RESPONDENT NO.4

¶26

RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF BAVANANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK - 562160, KOLAR DISTRICT

¶27

KARNATAKA INDSRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 14/3, 2ND FLOOR,R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, BY ITS SECRETARY

¶28

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M S HARINATH FOR R1-R3, ADV., SRI G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV. FOR R4 TO R9 AND SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R10)

¶29

RFA FILED U/S 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DT. 24.11.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.42/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MALUR PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, ETC.,

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:42740 RFA No. 44 of 2016

¶32

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

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.11.2015 passed in OS No.42/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, whereby the said suit filed by the appellant - plaintiff against the respondents - defendants for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to suit schedule immovable property, was decreed partly by the trial Court, directing refund of advance amount of Rs.5,50,000/- in favour of the appellant - plaintiff from the respondents - defendants with interest at the rate of 9% PA from the date of agreement till payment.

¶35

The parties have filed a compromise petition dated 20.11.2023, which reads as under:

¶36

"Compromise petition under order 23 rule 3 of the CPC

¶37

1. Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.42/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur. He filed the said suit against M.Ramaiah now dead and represented by his LRs who are respondents 1 to 9.

¶38

2. Appellant filed the said suit seeking specific performance of the sale agreement dated 16.11.2011 executed in his favour by the deceased defendant Ramaiah with respect to the suit schedule

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:42740 RFA No. 44 of 2016

¶41

property, which is described as Sy.no.63, extent 1=00 acre with standing eucalyptus trees, situate in Jakkasandra village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar district.

¶42

3. During the pendency of the suit, suit schedule property came to be acquired by defendant no.8/ respondent no.10 i.e., Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and therefore appellant amended the plaint prayer column for a money decree in respect of the entire compensation amount.

¶43

4. Trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance while directing refund of the earnest money of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) with interest thereon at 9% per annum vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.2015.

¶44

5. Appellant/ plaintiff has filed the above appeal challenging the said judgment and decree of the trial court in so far as his prayer for entire compensation amount is rejected. 6. Appellant and respondents have now amicably settled the matter by agreeing to apportion the compensation awarded by defendant no.8/ respondent no.10 towards acquiring the suit schedule property, the terms of which are as under:

¶45

i. Appellant is entitled to and shall receive from defendant no.8/ respondent no.10 a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) from the compensation amount.

¶46

ii. Respondents 1 to 9 are entitled to and shall receive from defendant no.8/ respondent no.10 the rest of the compensation amount. iii. Defendant no.8/ respondent no.10 shall be directed to disburse the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) in favour of the appellant/ plaintiff and disbursement of balance compensation amount in favour of respondents 1 to 9.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:42740 RFA No. 44 of 2016

¶49

7. Parties do hereby declare that they have entered into this compromise at the intervention of well wishers on either side and out of their own free will and volition, having realized that a protracted litigation is not in their interest.

¶50

8. Parties do hereby state and declare that there is no element of fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, coercion, undue influence, etc., in the matter of filing this compromise petition.

¶51

9. Both parties do hereby respectfully pray that this Hon'ble court be pleased to accept this compromise petition and pass a decree in terms of this compromise petition and further direct respondent no.10 for disbursement of the compensation amount as stated above.

¶52

10. Court fee paid on the above appeal may be refunded to the appellant."

¶53

When the matter was posted on 20.11.2023, except learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, all parties and their respective counsel were present and compromise petition having been filed, the following order was passed:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

Joint Compromise Petition on behalf of the appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 9 is filed.

¶56

The said Compromise Petition is signed by the appellant as well as respondent Nos.1 to 9 as well as learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 9.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:42740 RFA No. 44 of 2016

¶59

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.5 to 9 are physically present and admit having signed the Compromise Petition and that the contents of the same are correct and proper. Respondent No.4 is stated to be physically present and sitting in the car parked in the car parking lot of this Court and is said to be unable to physically appear on account of his ill-health. However, respondent No.5 – Smt. Munirathnamma, who is none other than the wife of respondent No.4 states that the LTM of respondent No.4 has been duly affixed on the Compromise Petition. All parties state that they accept the terms and conditions of the compromise and they have understood its contents.

¶60

Respondent No.9, who was minor at the time of preferring the appeal since attained majority, consequently his guardianship stands duly discharged.

¶61

Re-list on 27.11.2023 for appearance of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, under the caption “Orders”."

¶62

Today, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to3 also appeared and has sought for permission to sign the compromise petition.

¶63

Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 is permitted to sigh the compromise petition.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2023:KHC:42740 RFA No. 44 of 2016

¶66

Being satisfied with the compromise petition

¶67

entered between the parties is lawful, I deem it just and appropriate to modify the impugned judgment and decree and dispose of the appeal in terms of the compromise petition.

¶68

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition dated 20.11.2023, impugned judgment and decree dated 24.11.2015 passed in OS No.42/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, is modified. The suit in OS No.42/2016 is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. Registry of this Court is directed to refund the entire Court Fee paid on the memorandum of appeal back to the appellant forthwith without any delay. So also, Registry of the trial Court is directed to refund the entire Court fee paid on the Plaint by the appellant - plaintiff back to the appellant - plaintiff forthwith without any delay and immediately upon receipt of the copy of this order.

¶69

Registry to draw decree accordingly.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri.a.Munishamy Reddy v. M.Ramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.a.Munishamy Reddy v. M.Ramaiah

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.G.Ramu Vs Smt. K.M. Shakunthala

Sri S Subramaniam Vs Sri George Alexander Muthoot

Smt. Divya Darshini Vs Prakash. B

Smt. Yashodha Vs Smt. Rashmi. J

Sri Ramesh Vs Smt Gowramma

Mrs. Divya Ravichandraa Vs M/S. Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd.