Dismissed

Smt Padma v. Sri Manjunath v

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2023RFA/474/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted a compromise petition filed by the appellant and respondent No. 1 under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, agreeing to dismiss the regular first appeal and confirm the trial court's judgment and decree regarding property rights, as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were non-intervening formal parties.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 07.02.2013 were confirmed.

Smt Padma Vs Sri Manjunath v — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

RFA No. 474 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.474 OF 2013 (DEC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. PADMA W/O. JANARDHANAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT 11/1, M.R. STREET, J.C. NAGAR, (MUNIREDDY PALYA) BANGALORE - 6. ... APPELANT

¶10

(BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M. THIMMARAYA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶13

SRI MANJUNATH .V S/O. VASUDEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.84/5, SUBBARAJU LAYOUT PUTTENAHALLI J.P. NAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE - 78.

¶14

SRI K.V. JAYARAJU S/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY, MAJOR IN AGE R/AT PUTTENAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 078. AT PRESENT RESIDING NO.14, 1^ST FLOOR, 25^TH MAIN ROAD, J.P. NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE (OPP. ASHA CLINIC) BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶15

¶16

RFA No. 474 of 2013

¶17

SRI H.P. DHARANENDRAIAH

¶18

S/O. DODDAHALLIRIAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.3555, CHIKKALORE, 11^TH MAIN, HANUMANTHACHARI ROAD HASSAN, PINCOE - 572 309. ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. S. NAGANANDINI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G. JAIRAJ AND ASSTS. FOR R-1)

¶20

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8350/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC., THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant and the

¶23

respondents have filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC.

¶24

The appellant- Smt. Padma and respondent No.1- Sri Manjunath V., are present before the Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents submit that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are only the formal parties. They remained ex-parte before the

¶26

¶27

RFA No. 474 of 2013

¶28

trial Court and their rights are not affected by the terms of

¶29

the compromise petition.

¶30

Said submission is placed on record.

¶31

The terms of the compromise petition reads as

¶32

under;

¶33

"The appellant and the respondent no.1 begs to submit as follows:-

¶34

1. It is submitted that, the respondent no.1 has field the original suit O.S.No.8350/2005 for declaration and injuction wherein he prayed to declare the sale deed dt:25.11.1982 executed by the respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no.3 herein and the sale deed dt:12.5.1993 executed by the respondent no.3 in favour of appellant as null and void and further to declare that the respondent no.1 is the absolute owner of the schedule property before the V Additional City Civil Judge (CCH.NO>13), at Bangalore City. And the Hon'ble court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent no.1 herein vide its Judgment and decree dt:7.2.2023. It is submitted that, being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court the appellant preferred this appeal.

¶35

¶36

RFA No. 474 of 2013

¶37

2. It is submitted that, after the interference of well wishers and friends both the appellant and respondent no.1 have decided to compromise the matter as follows:-

¶38

a) It is submitted that, the appellant has agreed to giver up her right, title and interested created under the sale deed dt:12.5.1993 with respect to the schedule property in favour of respondent No.1 and further agreed to execute confirmation deed in favour of the respondent no.1.

¶39

b) The respondent no.1 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) as full and final settlement to the appellant for giving up her right, title and interest over the schedule property. Further paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/(Rupees eight lakhs sand only) to the appellant by way of cheque bearing No.568205 dt:24.3.2023 drawn on State Bank of India, Puttenahally Branch, Bangalore. And further agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand only) on the date of registration of confirmation deed. Further the respondent No.1 has agreed to honour the cheque on its presentation.

¶40

c) In future the respondent no.1 will be the absolute owner and have exclusive right over the

¶41

¶42

RFA No. 474 of 2013

¶43

schedule property and the appellant or her legal heirs have no right, title and interest over the schedule property.

¶44

d) Except as above both the parties have no claim whatsoever against each other.

¶45

Wherefore the appellant and respondent no.1 prays this Hon'ble court may be pleased to dismiss the appeal and to confirm the Judgment and decree dt:7.2.2013 passed in O.S.No.8350/2005 by the V Additional City Civil Judge (CCH.13), at Bangalore City, to meet the ends of Justice and equity.”

¶46

The appellant and respondent No.1 admit the terms of the compromise petition and the appellant also admits receipt of the cheque bearing No.568205, dated 24.03.2023, drawn on the State Bank of India, Puttenahally Branch, Bangalore for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/towards part payment of the amount agreed. It is submitted that the cheque will be honoured on

¶47

presentation.

¶48

¶49

RFA No. 474 of 2013

¶50

Respondent No.1 admits that he is due for a

¶51

sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to be paid to the appellant, which he undertakes to pay on the date of registration or execution of the confirmation deed.

¶52

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is fully aware that no decree could be passed in terms of the compromise petition and that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court will have to be confirmed.

¶53

The terms of the compromise is legal. Hence, the same is accepted.

¶54

In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is confirmed. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Smt Padma v. Sri Manjunath v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Padma v. Sri Manjunath v

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

Smt. Muniyamma Vs Sri. B. L. Keshava Kumar

Sri Ganeshachari Vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Smt H Siddamma Vs Smt Gangamma

Smt Galamma Vs Sri Venkatesh

Pushpa Rai Vs the Deputy Secretary

Sri Puttaswamy Vs Sri Siddaiah S/O Late Sri Rachaiah