Disposed

G M Siddalingaiah v. Kariyappa

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2023RSA/889/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In RSA No. 889 of 2021, the High Court of Karnataka admitted a joint compromise petition filed by the parties during the hearing. The court found the settlement lawful and entered into voluntarily, setting aside the judgments of courts below and disposing of the appeal in accordance with the compromise terms. This was recorded as a regular second appeal against a confirmation decree.

What did the court decide?

The judgments of courts below are set aside; the appeal is disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition admitted by this court.

G M Siddalingaiah Vs Kariyappa — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:44785 RSA No. 889 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.889 OF 2021 (SP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

G M SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE MARULASIDDAIAH, MALLESHWARA EXTENSION, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KARIYAPPA

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O KENCHAPPA

¶15

NAGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O KARIYAPPA

¶16

NAGAVENI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O KARIYAPPA

¶17

SL.NOS.1-3 ARE RESIDENTS OF 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, KAGGADASAPURA MAIN ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU 560048

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:44785 RSA No. 889 of 2021

¶20

4. Y K THIPPESWAMY

¶21

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O KARE RANGAPPA, YAGACHIHALLI VILLAGE, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101

¶22

(DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED: 8.12.2023)

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. KUMARA SWAMY N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3; V/O DTD: 8/12/2023, R4 DELETED)

¶25

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.04.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.34/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.07.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO. 137/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI.

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The captioned second appeal is by unsuccessful plaintiff.

¶29

Today, a joint compromise petition is filed reporting settlement between the parties. In terms of settlement, the appellant/plaintiff has agreed to pay

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:44785 RSA No. 889 of 2021

¶32

additional consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. Learned

¶33

counsel appearing for plaintiff further states that in terms of settlement, a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/is already secured and that the Demand Draft particulars are furnished in the joint compromise petition. It is agreed that sale consideration will be paid on the date of execution of sale deed by respondents/defendants.

¶34

The parties are identified by their respective counsel. When this Court has queried the plaintiff and defendants, the plaintiff and defendants have made a statement before this Court that their respective counsels have explained the terms and conditions of the compromise. They have further stated that having understood the conditions, they have signed the joint compromise petition.

¶35

On perusal of the compromise petition, this

¶36

Court would prima facie find that the said compromise is lawful and the same is entered into between the parties

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:44785 RSA No. 889 of 2021

¶39

out of their free will and consent. None of the parties who are signatories to the compromise petition have complained any duress, coercion or undue influence. In that view of the matter, the compromise petition is admitted and the same is taken on record.

¶40

In the light of compromise arrived between the parties, the judgments rendered by both the Courts below are hereby set aside. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition.

¶41

Learned counsel on record has further brought to the notice of this Court that defendant No.4 who is also asserting right based on an agreement executed by the defendants has instituted a separate suit. If defendant No.4 has instituted a separate suit, then this compromise will not come in the way of defendant No.4 in pursuing his right in the pending suit.

¶42

CA, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

G M Siddalingaiah v. Kariyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G M Siddalingaiah v. Kariyappa

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.M.N Madhusudhan Vs General Secretary

Sri G C Somashekaraiah Vs Sri G B Ganganarayanappa

Sri.Haleshappa Vs Sri.Mallappa

Smt Puttamma, Vs Kempamma Dead by Lrs Prakash

M Ramaiah Vs T. Ramadas

H v Padmanaba Gowda Vs Muniyamma