Disposed

Udaya Kumar Shetty v. Imthiyaz

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024RFA/1004/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A regular first appeal against dismissal of a suit for specific performance was settled amicably. The court, satisfied that the parties' joint memo reflected a voluntary settlement, disposed of the appeal in terms of the joint memo and directed a modified decree.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in terms of joint memo; modified decree to be issued with joint memo appended; permissible refund of court fee allowed.

Udaya Kumar Shetty Vs Imthiyaz — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:35875 RFA No. 1004 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1004 OF 2019 (SP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

UDAYA KUMAR SHETTY, S/O LATE SHAMARAYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT SHAMSUDHA, ALVARES ROAD, KADRI KAIBATTAL, MANGALORE-575 003.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.ABISHEK MARLA M. J, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

IMTHIYAZ,

¶13

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

S/O B. M. HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.7/82, SITE NO.142, 7TH BLOCK, KRISHNAPURA, SURATHKAL, MANGALORE-575 011.

¶15

YASMINE @ YASMINE IMTHIYAZ, W/O IMTHIYAZ @ IMTHIYAZ B @ MOIDEEN IMTHIYAZ HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.404, 4TH FLOOR, PRESIDENCY ENCLAVE, SAFFIR BLOCK BENDORWELL, MANGALORE-575 002.

¶16

ANJUN MOREAS, S/O LATE V. H. MOREAS,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:35875 RFA No. 1004 of 2019

¶19

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT SONAR, D.NO.1-S-22-1771/4, NEAR MODERN RICE MILL, LONG LANE, HOIGEBAIL, BOLOOR, MANGALORE-575 006.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.S.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.CYRIAL PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.22/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Appellant and respondents are present before the Court.

¶26

A joint memo is filed by the parties, signed by both the parties and their respective Advocates.

¶27

As per the joint memo, it is reported that the dispute involved in the present appeal is amicably settled at the intervention of the well wishers of both the parties.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35875 RFA No. 1004 of 2019

¶29

Therefore, they submit that the appeal can be disposed of in terms of the joint memo.

¶30

On enquiry, satisfied with the submission made

¶31

on behalf of the parties that the settlement is voluntary and without undue influence or coercion.

¶32

Hence, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the joint memo.

¶35

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

¶36

iii. Permissible refund of Court fee is allowed.

¶37

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶38

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Udaya Kumar Shetty v. Imthiyaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaya Kumar Shetty v. Imthiyaz

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

C L Hanuman Vs Poornima

Sri Mohan Kumar Vs Sri P K Asher

Sri M Prasantha Vs Smt D Nethra

B Narayanaswamy Vs C. Sathyanarayana

Puy Vast Maritime India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri. Rama Enterprises

Sandhya Shivaprasad Vs Smt Sesamma