Allowed

Shri U Keshava v. Smt Janamma Widow of Late U Shama

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023RSA/713/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A regular second appeal was filed challenging prior judgments in a civil suit. During the hearing, a compromise petition was filed by both parties. The Court accepted the compromise and allowed the appeal, modifying the decree to enforce the settlement terms.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed by modifying the impugned judgment and decree to reflect the terms of the compromise petition signed by the parties; Registry directed to draw the decree.

Shri U Keshava Vs Smt Janamma Widow of Late U Shama — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - RSA No. 713 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.713 OF 2010 (SP)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI U. KESHAVA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs:

¶7

1(a) SMT. MEERA KESHAVA, W/O LATE U. KESHAVA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, ASHOKNAGAR,

¶8

MANGALORE-575 006.

¶9

SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR,

¶10

1(b) S/O LATE U. KESHAVA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A DAMBEL HOUSE, SHEDIGURI, ASHOKNAGAR,

¶11

MANGALORE-575 006.

¶12

1(c) SRI. SANDEEP, S/O LATE U. KESHAVA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A NO.5-78/7,

¶13

CHITRAKSHI NILAYA, BOLPUGUDDE, KAVOOR, MANGALORE-575 015.

¶14

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D 1(d) SMT. SANDHYA, Location: High W/O LOKESH, D/O LATE U. KESHAVA, Court of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A B-2-8, SUDAR NAGAR, "BLUE OCEANIC BUILDING", EKTHA NAGAR, KADIVILE WEST, MUMBAI-400 067.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M.S.VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT. JANAMMA, W/O LATE U SHAMA, MAJOR,

¶19

¶20

RSA No. 713 of 2010

¶21

SHRI. SANJAYA, S/O LATE U SHAMA, MAJOR

¶22

SMT. SUJAYA, D/O LATE U. SHAMA, MAJOR

¶23

ALL ARE R/A SHEDIGURI, MANGALORE-575 006.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE AND SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶26

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2009 PASSED IN R.A. NO.8/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K, MANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.4.2007 PASSED IN O.S.4/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & CJM AT MANGALORE.

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Challenging impugned judgment and decree dated 16.12.2009 passed in R.A.no.8/2007 by III Additional District Judge, D.K., Mangalore and judgment and decree dated 11.04.2007 passed in O.S.no.4/1999 by I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Mangalore, this appeal is filed by appellant - defendant - U. Keshava since deceased represented by his legal representatives.

¶30

3 - RSA No. 713 of 2010

¶31

During pendency of above appeal, learned counsel for parties submitted that parties have entered into compromise and a Compromise Petition containing terms of settlement is filed today. Same is signed by both learned counsel and parties. It is further submitted that appellant no.1(b) is Power of Attorney holder for appellants no.1(a) and (d). Likewise, respondent no.3 is Power of Attorney holder for respondents no.1 and 2, who are present and identified by their respective counsel. Terms of compromise are as under:

¶32

"7. That in terms of the Compromise, respondents have agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.35 Lakhs (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh only) to the LRs of the appellant in addition to the payment already made by Late U.Shyama to late U.Keshava as mentioned in the agreement for sale dated 03.10.1984, towards full and final settlement, at the time of execution of sale deed before Sub-Registrar's Office at Mangaluru. In view of the fact that there are 4 LRs to the deceased appellant, each one of them shall be paid a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- by the respondents.

¶33

8. The appellants shall executed the registered sale deed within Six months from the date of receipt of the order, by clearing any hurdle in getting the registration work done and the respondents shall get the sale deed registered in their name or in their nominees name within the said

¶34

¶35

RSA No. 713 of 2010

¶36

duration for the consideration of Rs.35 Lakhs (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh only) state supra. In case, the LRs of the appellant fails to execute the registered sale deed, the respondents shall be at liberty to sue out execution and also file contempt petition against LRs of the appellant.

¶37

9. That all the LRs of the appellant shall personally be present before the Sub-Registrar's office for the purpose of execution of sale deed.

¶38

10. The LRs of the appellant shall provide Legal heir certificate, RTC and property card or 11E sketch and all other required requisite documents for the purpose of registration of sale deed without fail. The respondent/s shall bear the Registration stamp duty for the purpose of registration."

¶39

On interaction with parties, they have stated that

¶40

terms of compromise have been explained to them and after understanding them, they have signed compromise petition without there being any threat, coercion, inducement from any one and out of their own free will.

¶41

I have perused terms of compromise. They are lawful and in best interest of parties.

¶42

Being satisfied with same, compromise petition is accepted, appeal is allowed by modifying judgment and decree

¶43

¶44

RSA No. 713 of 2010

¶45

to the extent and in terms of compromise arrived between

¶46

parties.

¶47

Registry is directed to draw decree incorporating terms of

¶48

compromise.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

GRD

Shri U Keshava v. Smt Janamma Widow of Late U Shama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri U Keshava v. Smt Janamma Widow of Late U Shama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri P Gopinath Reddy Vs the Commissioner

Smt Jayalakshmi v Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi

Sri G C Thipperudrappa Vs Smt Lakshmidevi

Sri Neelakanta Cold Storage Private Limited Vs the Union Bank of India

The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Mohan Bhatta M R Vs State of Karnataka