Disposed

Smt Sulochanamma v. M Vasantha

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2023RFA/523/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a regular first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC. The Court allowed the impleadment of additional respondents as per Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and accepted a joint compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, wherein appellant lands were to be sold in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for a total consideration of Rs. 90,50,000.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in terms of compromise petition; decree modified to reflect sale; impleadment of respondents allowed.

Smt Sulochanamma Vs M Vasantha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:38690 RFA No. 523 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2013 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.SULOCHANAMMA, W/O LATE M.R.RAJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶9

MR.JYOTHISWARA REDDY, S/O LATE M.R.RAJA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT NO.5, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, III BLOCK, EAST JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI.NAVEED AHMED &

¶14

SRI.A.SAMAD KHAN, ADVOCATES; V/O/D 29.09.2023 A1 IS DECEASED AND A2 IS HER LR)

¶15

AND:

¶16

M.VASANTHA W/O SRI.ASOKA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.52, KENCHANAHALLI, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 039.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:38690 RFA No. 523 of 2013

¶19

SRI.SYED IMTHIAZ PASHA, S/O SYED ABDUL BASITH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶20

SMT.FAHAMIDA BEGUM, W/O SYED IMTHIAZ PASHA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶21

RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO.7, 4TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK EAST JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.HASAN MAGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:30.01.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.11287/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Appellant No.2 - Sri.M.Jyothiswara Reddy, who is

¶28

the sole legal representative of Smt.Sulochanamma is present.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:38690 RFA No. 523 of 2013

¶31

Sri.M.V.Vasantha - respondent in the appeal is

¶32

also present.

¶33

The application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is filed to implead Sri.Syed Imthiaz Pasha and Smt.Fahamida Begum as respondent Nos.2 and 3. Application is supported by the vakalath. Same is allowed as the parties have no objections to implead them as party

¶34

respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel to amend the cause title and file amended appeal memo forthwith.

¶35

Impleading applicants are present before the Court and they are identified by the learned counsel, Sri.Mohammed Qwais Sultan.

¶36

A joint compromise petition is filed under

¶37

Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC where under both appellant and respondent No.1 have agreed to sell the suit property in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are impleaded in

¶38

the appeal for a total consideration of Rs.90,50,000/-. Out of the said sum, Rs.31,50,000/- is paid to respondent

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:38690 RFA No. 523 of 2013

¶41

Nos.1 and balance sum of Rs.60,00,000/- is paid to appellant No.2. After the receipt of said sale consideration of Rs.31,50,000 and Rs.60,00,000/as aforesaid, appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 have no objections for sale of the property in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. They agree that they would jointly execute necessary sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶42

Parties confirm that the compromise petition

¶43

has been filed out of their volition and there is no force, coercion and undue influence in reaching the terms of compromise.

¶44

As such, there is no impediment for this Court

¶45

to dispose of the appeal by accepting the compromise petition. Hence, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

¶48

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38690 RFA No. 523 of 2013

¶49

ii. Office is directed to pass a modified decree in terms of compromise petition appending the copy of compromise petition as part of the decree.

¶50

iii. No order as to costs.

¶51

iv. Permissible court fee is ordered to be refunded.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Smt Sulochanamma v. M Vasantha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sulochanamma v. M Vasantha

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 Mohammed Ibrahim Vs Sri S a Mujeep

Manjunatha. N @ Manja. N Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Mannar Reddy Vs Sri. Ketaram Patel

Late Sri Chinnaswamy S/O M Dasappa Vs State of Karnataka Reptd by the Chief Secretary

M/S the Basavanagudi Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs Mr Chandrashekara Reddy

Smt Narasamma Vs Mr Muthaiah @ Muthappa