Partly allowed

Mr a Ajay Prasad v. Mr v Mohammed Sanaullah

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023RFA/912/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC and modified the impugned judgment and decree. This modification was made in accordance with a joint settlement memo executed by the parties, which provided for vacating premises and reciprocal waiver of decree terms.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree dated 16.10.2020 were modified in terms of the joint settlement memo. The entire court fees of Rs.67,275/- were refunded to the appellant.

Mr a Ajay Prasad Vs Mr v Mohammed Sanaullah — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40549 RFA No. 912 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 912 OF 2021 (POS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. A. AJAY PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O MR. N. AJIT PRASAD RESIDING AT NO.1, HAL 2ND STAGE, DOMLUR, HAL 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 008, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE AND HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY MRS. SUNITA PRASAD.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SIBU GOPINATHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR. V. MOHAMMED SANAULLAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O MR. B. MOHAMMED AMANULLAH, RESIDING AT NO.1, 1ST FLOOR, DOMLUR, HAL 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 008.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. C.S. HASHIM SAEED, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.10.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.8723/2012

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:40549 RFA No. 912 of 2021

¶19

ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION, DAMAGES AND INJUNCTION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16th October, 2020 passed in O.S.No.8723/2012 by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant for possession, damages and other relief in relation to the suit schedule immoveable properties was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant.

¶23

Both the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and have filed a joint memo which has been

¶24

duly signed by the respective parties as well as their Counsel, who identify the parties, who are physically

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:40549 RFA No. 912 of 2021

¶27

present before this Court. The said joint memo reads as

¶28

under:

¶29

"JOINT MEMO

¶30

The Appellant and the Respondent have settled the cause in the impugned judgment dated 16.10.2020, in original suit bearing O.S.No.8723/2012 and therefore this appeal is being drawn on the settlement drawn here:

¶31

(1) That the appellant has vacated the Plaint Schedule Property and has handed over the Keys of the Plaint Schedule Property to the respondent.

¶32

(2) That the respondent in reciprocation has agreed to not enforce any terms of the impugned Judgment including the Pecuniary terms in the Decree dat.05-02-2021.

¶33

(3) That the Appellant in reciprocation has agreed not to file any appeal or create any legal Problems in terms of the impugned judgment including, if, any pecuniary terms against the Respondent in pursuance to the Judgment and Decree dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Hon'ble III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40549 RFA No. 912 of 2021

¶35

No.25) in original suit bearing O.S.No.2797 of 2014.

¶36

(4) That the Appellant has agreed to handover the original documents of the suit schedule property which are in his custody to the Respondent.

¶37

Sd/- Sd/Appellant Respondent Sd/- Sd/Advocate for the Advocate for the Appellant Respondent Bengaluru. Date:10.11.2023."

¶38

Being satisfied with the terms and conditions of

¶39

the joint memo and that the same is lawful, I deem it just

¶40

and proper to dispose of the appeal by modifying the impugned judgment and decree in terms of the joint memo.

¶41

In the result, the appeal is hereby disposed of in terms of the joint memo, dated 10.11.2023. The impugned judgment and decree, dated 16.10.2020 passed

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:40549 RFA No. 912 of 2021

¶44

in O.S.No.8723/2012 by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is modified in terms of the joint memo.

¶45

The registry is directed to refund the entire Court

¶46

Fee of a sum of Rs.67,275/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Five only) back to the appellant forthwith without any delay.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

NSU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT: BHK

Mr a Ajay Prasad v. Mr v Mohammed Sanaullah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr a Ajay Prasad v. Mr v Mohammed Sanaullah

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

G.S.Basavana Gowda Vs Chandrappa

G.S.Basavana Gowda Vs Kollappa

Sri Sunchappa @ Chunchappa Vs Sri Ananda S/O Dyavappa

Sri B R Muddappa Vs Sri Balyameedira Raj

Mrs. Bhagyamma Vs the N.G.E.F. Employees and Ex - Employees

Sri Mohammed Farooq Sait Vs Sri M Om Prakash