K Venkatachalapathy Gupta S/O Late Krishnaiah Setty v. N Lakshmipathaiah Setty S/O Nandi Narasimha Setty

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2023RFA/589/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A regular first appeal against a dismissal of a suit for specific performance was disposed of on the terms of a compromise agreement between the parties, wherein the appellant undertook to vacate the property and the respondent waived rent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of on the terms of the compromise petition including the appellant's obligation to vacate the suit property and the respondent's waiver of rent.

K Venkatachalapathy Gupta S/O Late… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:19740 RFA No. 589 of 2006

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 589 OF 2006 (SP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K VENKATACHALAPATHY GUPTA S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.105, DIAGONAL ROAD VISVESWRAPURAM BANGALORE 4.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.M.L.GOWDA .,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

N LAKSHMIPATHAIAH SETTY

¶13

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

S/O NANDI NARASIMHA SETTY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O NANDI NARASIMHA SETTY RAGIPET,BANGALORE 560002 SINCE DEAD HIS LR’S.

¶15

a. SMT. MANJULA

¶16

D/O LATE N LAKSHMIPATHIAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶17

b. SRI. ANANTHAPRASAD S/O LATE N LAKSHMIPATHIAHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶18

c. SMT. MAMATHA

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:19740 RFA No. 589 of 2006

¶20

¶21

D/O LATE N LAKSHMIPATHIAHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶22

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.25/93 BOOSA SHOP, RAGI PET BANGALORE-56002.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. M S PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1(a to c))

¶25

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:26.11.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2644/87 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESS. JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-2), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2005 passed by the I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.2644/1987, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance has been dismissed.

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:19740 RFA No. 589 of 2006

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶31

referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶32

The plaintiff filed the suit i.e.,

¶33

O.S.No.2644/1987 against the defendant for relief of specific performance. The learned Judge of the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2005 has dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.

¶34

During the pendency of this appeal, both the parties have compromised the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The contents of the compromise petition is extracted hereinbelow:

¶35

APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEFURE 1908,

¶36

The appellant and the legal representative of deceased respondent submit as fallows.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:19740 RFA No. 589 of 2006

¶39

1. The appellant has filed the Regular Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated:26.11.2005 passed in O.S No: 2644/1987 by the Learned First Additional City Civil Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in the suit filed by the Plaintiff Appellant, which was one for Specific Performance of the Agreement dated:10.03.1983.

¶40

2. At the intervention of friends and well-wishers, the parties have decided to settle the matter amicably since the respondent being the brother in law of the appellant. The appellant is in possession of the suit Schedule property as a tenant. The parties have amicably settled the matter under the fallowing terms and conditions:

¶41

A. The appellant herein agreed to withdraw the above first appeal.

¶42

B. The appellant is in possession of the schedule property being a tenant. The respondent has filed an HRC eviction petition against the him, the respondent is hereby agreed to withdraw the said petition if any unconditionally.

¶43

C. The appellant is hereby agreed to vacate the schedule premises within one year from the date of this compromise petition.

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:19740 RFA No. 589 of 2006

¶45

¶46

D. The respondent agreed that, the rent of the schedule premises if any is due by the appellant is hereby Waved viewed and also till the delivery of possession by the appellant i.e., one year from today. [09.06.2024].

¶47

E. The electricity consumption charges if any due, Appellant is agreed to pay the same.

¶48

F. The parties shall bear their own cost of the above appeal.

¶49

G. The court fee paid by the appellant in the above appeal kindly may be refund to him.

¶50

Wherefore, the parties above named pray that, this Hon'ble court may be pleased dispose of the above appeal in the above mentioned terms, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶51

As per the terms of the compromise petition, the appellant-plaintiff has undertaken that he will vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent-defendant on or before 9.6.2024. The defendant has also agreed to waive off the rent till 9.6.2024.

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:19740 RFA No. 589 of 2006

¶53

¶54

The compromise petition signed by the parties

¶55

and their respective counsel is taken on record.

¶56

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in terms

¶57

of the compromise petition. The compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC is ordered to be treated as

¶58

part and parcel of this order.

¶59

The court fee paid by the appellant, if any, is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.

¶60

The Registry is directed to draw final decree in terms of the compromise petition.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

¶63

K Venkatachalapathy Gupta S/O Late Krishnaiah Setty v. N Lakshmipathaiah Setty S/O Nandi Narasimha Setty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Venkatachalapathy Gupta S/O Late Krishnaiah Setty v. N Lakshmipathaiah Setty S/O Nandi Narasimha Setty

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 Kodandaramaiah Vs Sri Venu

Sri Venkatachalaiah Vs Smt Munirangamma

A Nataraj Vs Krishnamurthy

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Venkataramanaih

K B Shivaramaiah Vs the Vysya Bank Limited

Deepak R Rajani S/O Ramachandra Rajani Vs K P Jayamahadev Subramanyam