Allowed

Sri. Shankar Rao C v. Sri.K.P.Soundarajan

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2024RFA/1724/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a suit for declaration and injunction over suit property was compromised: respondent conceded appellant's title and gave up claims under an earlier decree for Rs.30,00,000 paid by demand drafts. Court verified the compromise and decreed the suit accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; suit decreed in terms of compromise; judgment and decree of trial court set aside; full court fee refund prayed.

Sri. Shankar Rao C Vs Sri.K.P.Soundarajan — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:6417-DB RFA No. 1724 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1724 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SHANKAR RAO C, S/O SRI LATE CHANDRASHEKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.99, 4TH CROSS, VITTAL NAGAR,CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU – 560 018.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI.K.P.SOUNDARAJAN, S/O LATE K P NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.114, JARAGANAHALLI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. DAYANANDA K G., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:19.06.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.1565/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION & ETC.,

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:6417-DB RFA No. 1724 of 2023

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The parties have moved a common application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reporting settlement of the lis in terms of compromise concluded by & between them. The Compromise Application reads as under:

¶22

“The applicant and the respondent states as follows:-

¶23

“1. The applicant has filed the above suit for declaration and possession of the suit schedule property in and possession of the suit schedule property in O.S. No.1565/2017 before the City civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore he claims to have purchased schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 24-05-2012 from one Smt.Ambujakshi bai for valuable consideration and was put in possession of the suit schedule property and he got the transfer of the Katha and revenue records.

¶24

2. The respondent contested the matter and set up the claim over the property on the basis of the decree passed in O.S.no.7423 of 1991 dated: 17-06-1998 and was put in possession of the property referred to therein in execution petition from other defenses.

¶25

3. The trail court dismisses the suit only on the issues that suit is barred by res-judicata and limitation and holding that the decree is passed in O.S.No.7423 of 1991 was binding on the plaintiff, without recording the evidence. The said decree was assigned in this appeal.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6417-DB RFA No. 1724 of 2023

¶27

4. The dispute between the parties has been settled by the interventions of the well-wishers.

¶28

5. The respondent concedes the title and possession of the suit schedule property of the appellant and his privies ad further declare that he or anybody claiming under him has no right title, interest and possession whatsoever the suit schedule property.

¶29

6. The applicant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) by way of Demand Draft Bearing No.656210, dated 08-02-2024, drawn on State Bank of India, Chamarajpet Branch Bangalore for Rs.15,00,000/- And Demand draft Bearing No.400150, dated 1302-2024, draw on Maharastra Bank, Chamarajpet Branch Bangalore for Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent against all his claims.

¶30

7. The respondent in consideration of the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakhs only) has given up his right, title and possession if any over the suit schedule property in favour of the appellant and also the right if any under the decree passed in O.S.No.7423/1991.

¶31

8. The respondent under takes that he will not claim any right over the suit schedule property on the basis of the any title deed or the decree passed in O.S.No.7423 of 1991 and has no objection to decree the suit filed by the appellant against him seeking Declaration and Injunction.

¶32

9. The above compromise is being arrived at between the parties out of their free will and wish and there is no coercion or threat of any kind whatsoever in arriving the above compromise.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:6417-DB RFA No. 1724 of 2023

¶34

10. The appellant prays for refund of the full court fee.

¶35

Therefore, the appellant and respondent pray that this Hon’ble court be pleased to decree the suit as prayed for in terms of the above compromise in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶36

A bare perusal of the contents of the

¶37

Compromise Application raises presumptive value, there being no reason to doubt its authenticity & bonafide. Each of its pages is signed by the parties. On the last page, their signatures do occur along with those of their counsel. The counsel identified the parties personally present before the court. We have also interacted with them. In the open court, the appellant through his counsel has handed one banker’s cheque of State Bank of India dated 8.2.2024 drawn for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) only, in favour of sole respondent and another demand draft dated 13.2.2024 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra for the likesum in favour of respondent. The entire amount comprised in the two bank instruments works out to Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh) only.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6417-DB RFA No. 1724 of 2023

¶39

Counsel for the appellant assures that these are genuine instruments and in the event, they stand unrealized on due presentation to the bank, he understands that his client may have to face contempt proceedings apart from other.

¶40

In view of the above, this appeal is allowed; suit is decreed in terms of this compromise; judgment & decree of the court below are set aside.

¶41

Registry to draw decree accordingly.

Costs made easy.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Sri. Shankar Rao C v. Sri.K.P.Soundarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shankar Rao C v. Sri.K.P.Soundarajan

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 B Satish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Govindaraju K R Vs the State of Karnataka

The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Thirthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Smt Sudhamani

Sri B S Krishnamurthy Vs Sri Devidas Gaonkar