Disposed

Sri S Vijaykumar v. Mr Narayanappa

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024RFA/221/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular first appeal against dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction over site No.36B, Sy.No.60/2A, Venkatala village. During the appeal the parties entered into a compromise: respondents paid Rs.30 lakhs to appellants, who gave up all rights over the property. Compromise application allowed; appeal disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Compromise allowed: Rs.30 lakhs paid to appellants, who forego rights over suit property in favour of respondents.

Sri S Vijaykumar Vs Mr Narayanappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42140 RFA No. 221 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2016 (PAR/INJ-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S. VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE SEETAPATHI

¶9

SMT. KALYANI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O SRI. S. VIJAY KUMAR

¶10

BOTH ARE R/O NO.126, TOWER 11, SUPREME ENCLAVE MAYUR VIHAR, DELHI-110091.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

MR. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS S/O LATE DASAPPA RESPONDENT NO.1 DIED ON 27.2.2022. LRS OF RESPONDENT NO.1 ARE ALREADY RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RESPONDENT NO.6

¶16

MR. N. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O MR. NARAYANAPPA

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:42140 RFA No. 221 of 2016

¶19

MR. N. ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O MR. NARAYANAPPA

¶20

MR. N. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O MR. NARAYANAPPA

¶21

MR. N. NAGABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O MR. NARAYANAPPA

¶22

MR. N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O MR. NARAYANAPPA

¶23

ALL ARE R/O VENKATALA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. A. RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6; VIDE ORDER DATED:21/10/24, R1 DIED ON 27/2/22, R2 TO R6 ARE LR'S OF R1)

¶26

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2014 PASSED IN OS.NO.3657/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUITS FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:42140 RFA No. 221 of 2016

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

This appeal is filed by the appellants Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs for setting aside the judgment and decree for having dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.3657/2004 passed by the VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dated 20.12.2014.

¶33

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶34

The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.

¶35

The case of the plaintiffs is that they have filed the suit for injunction for restraining the defendants from interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing No.36B situated at Sy.No.60/2A of Venkatala village, said to be purchased from the GPA holder of the defendant No.1 and the defendants said to be interfering with the peaceful

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:42140 RFA No. 221 of 2016

¶38

possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Hence, this appeal was filed.

¶39

After appearance, the defendants also filed written statement denying the same. Based upon the same, the Trial Court framed the issues and ultimately dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, the appellants are before this court.

¶40

During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No.1 died. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the legal representatives of the respondent No.1 and they have filed joint compromise application along with the appellants/plaintiffs. The respondents have agreed to pay Rs.30 lakhs to the plaintiffs as compensation/the sale consideration, by way of online transfer which is said to be already transferred to the appellants. The appellants accepted and acknowledged for having received Rs.30 lakhs from the respondents, through online and agreed to forego the rights over said suit schedule property.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42140 RFA No. 221 of 2016

¶42

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents along with the parties are placed on record.

¶43

Though the appellants claimed suit schedule property belonging to them as purchased from the GPA holder of the respondent No.1 and subsequently the suit came to be dismissed and now they entered into compromise. The respondent said to be paid rs.30 lakhs to the appellants and the appellants have received the same and given up their rights over the suit schedule property against the site No.36-B situated at Sy.No.60/2A of Venkatala village and the appellants also stated they have no right, title, interest or possession existed over the schedule property hereinafter and the same belongs to the respondent defendants. Therefore, the compromise application is hereby requires to be allowed.

¶44

Hence, the I.A.No.1/2024 filed for the compromise

¶45

of the appeal is hereby allowed.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:42140 RFA No. 221 of 2016

¶48

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of, in terms of

¶49

compromise, wherein the appellants received Rs.30 lakhs

¶50

and agreed to forego the rights over the site No.36B situated at Sy.No.60/2A of Venkatala village in favour of the respondents.

¶51

Draw decree Accordingly.

¶52

Office to send the copy of the judgment and trial court records to trial Court.

¶53

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶54

AKV List No.: 5 Sl No.: 1 CT:SK

Sri S Vijaykumar v. Mr Narayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Vijaykumar v. Mr Narayanappa

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 Narahari @ Benaka Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Imran @ Twist Imran Vs the State of Karnataka

Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Girish Kumar K Vs State of Karnataka

Safeer Vs State of Karnataka by