Allowed

R Rathanprem v. Sri.M K Ramegowda

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2024RFA/483/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular First Appeal regarding specific performance dismissed as parties filed a compromise petition. The court allowed the appeal on terms of settlement, directing refund of court fee to respondent and appellants to pay additional sum within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and decree set aside; registry to refund court fee to first respondent; appellants to pay remaining sum within four weeks.

R Rathanprem Vs Sri.M K Ramegowda — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB RFA No. 483 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 483 OF 2021 (SP)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

R RATHANPREM, S/O RATHNAJA KIKIS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶12

SMT ROSELINE MENAKA, W/O RATHANPREM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BOTH ARE R/AT MADHU NIVAS, GORKOPPALU MAIN ROAD, VIDYANAGARA, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶16

(BY SRI. KALYAN R .,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

SRI. M K RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE KENGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O IN FRONT OF CRIST SCHOOL KUVEMPU ROAD, VIDYANAGARA, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶20

LILLI PRISEELA D/O R RATHANPREM AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, MINOR,

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB RFA No. 483 of 2021

¶22

MADHU NIVASA, GOWRIKOPPALU MAIN ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶23

GUARDIANSHIP DISCHARGED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 21.02.2024.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.H N BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.M V MANJUNATH.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AN DECREE DATED 11.02.2021 PASSED IN OS No.25/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HASSAN DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGEMENT

¶29

This appeal seeks to lay a challenge to the Judgment

¶30

& Decree for Specific Performance. After service of notice, the Respondents entered appearance through learned advocates. The second respondent since attained majority, the guardian is discharged.

¶31

Both the sides having brought about a settlement,

¶32

have filed the Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908 seeking disposal of this Appeal in terms thereof. Essentially the settlement states that the suit property shall be retained by the vendors who happen to be the

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB RFA No. 483 of 2021

¶34

appellants herein and the amount received by way of earnest & advance in a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- about eight years ago shall be handed back to the vendee i.e., first Respondent – M K Ramegowda.

¶35

The appellants and their counsel to infuse elements of justice & equity in the subject settlement undertake to this court that an additional amount of Rs.2 lakh (Rupees two lakh) only also will be given to the first respondent vendee. They agree that whatever court fee paid on the appeal memo be directed to be returned to the first respondent himself and that the remainder of the amount would be paid to him within four weeks. They also agree that failure to make such payment would entitle the first respondent to seek recall of this order and dismissal of the appeal itself. This is fair enough.

¶36

The Compromise Petition reads as under:

¶37

“Appellants and respondents humbly submits as follows:

¶38

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgement and decree

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB RFA No. 483 of 2021

¶41

dated 11/02/2021 in O.S.No.25/2017 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan.

¶42

2. The respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 6/11/2014. The plaintiff had paid an advance amount of Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs only) out of the total sale consideration amount of Rs.22,00,000/-.

¶43

3. That at the intervention of the friends and well-wishers the parties to the lis have agreed to amicably settle the dispute. The terms of the settlement are as hereunder.

¶44

4. The appellants as per the order date d18/12/2021 have deposited an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- before the executing court at Hassan in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Court.

¶45

5. The appellants have agreed to pay an amount of Rs,20,00,000/- to the respondent No.1/plaintiff for which he has agreed to receive an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- ad has given up his right over the suit schedule property. Towards the payment of Rs.21,00,000/- the appellant have no objection to release the amount of Rs.21,00,000/- which has been deposited by the appellants before the executing court and they would also file necessary memo before the trial court for the release of the said amount infavour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The respondent No.2 who is the daughter of the appellants has no objection for the settlement.

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB RFA No. 483 of 2021

¶47

6. The respondent No.1/plaintiff will to claim any right over schedule property. And the settlement arrived between the parties is full and final.

¶48

7. The respondent No.1/plaintiff hereby acknowledge the receipt of the same ad the amount received is as full and final settlement to the respondent No.1/plaintiff and he has no more claims here afterwards in respect of the schedule property and that, he has no objection for the appellants/defendants to sell the schedule property.

¶49

8. The parties to this compromise have arrived at the settlement out of their own free will and consent. There is no any undue influence or coercion on the parties to the settlement.

¶50

Wherefore, in view of the full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent no.1/plaintiff, this Hon’ble Court may be please to modify the judgment and decree passed by the trial court I terms of compromise arrived between the parties, in respect of the schedule property and hence, the above appeal may be allowed in terms of the compromise arrived between the parities ad the office may be directed to refund the court fee to the appellants, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶51

SCHEDULE

¶52

RCC house and sit property measuring East West 20.11 meter South to North 10.66 meter (20.11X10.66 meter), total 214.37 square meter bearing property ID NO.151600602700604206. Property No.1111.

¶53

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB RFA No. 483 of 2021

¶54

MR No.155/20003-04, situated at Sathyamangala Extension, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk and is bounded as follows:

¶55

EAST :- Road. West :- House of Shankarachar. North :- House of Dyananada. South :- Site of Rangegowda.”

¶56

We have perused the Compromise Petition

¶57

keeping in mind the undertaking of the appellants to pay the additional amount of Rs.2 lakh as mentioned above.

¶58

We have interacted with the parties personally present before the Court. We are of the considered view that the petition is bona fide and there is no impediment for disposing off the subject appeal in terms of compromise which would include the undertaking to pay the additional sum as mentioned.

¶59

Learned counsel for the parties together submit

¶60

that the amount deposited in the Executing Court in Ex. Petition No. 71/2021 in a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- shall be

¶61

paid to the first Respondent – plaintiff Mr. M.K. Ramegowda immediately. In addition to that Rs.2,00,000/- the court fee paid on the appeal memo shall

¶62

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB RFA No. 483 of 2021

¶63

be returned by the Registry to the first respondent only forthwith. The deficit shall be made good by the appellants within a period of four weeks from this day, failing which the said respondent can seek recall of this order and further dismissal of the appeal also.

¶64

Since the parties have compromised the dispute

¶65

before the hearing date, the Court Fee needs to be refunded and the said refund shall be made to first Respondent – M K Ramegowda towards the additional amount payable to him. The remainder to be made good within four weeks. A Memo dated 21.02.2024 filed by the appellants to that effect reads as under:

¶66

“The appellants humbly submits that in addition to Rs.21,00,000/- the appellants undertake to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent No.1 out of which Court fee of Rs.1,17,700/Paid by appellants, is permitted to be paid to respondent No.1 and balance amount of Rs.82,300/- will be paid to respondent No.1 within a period of 4 weeks, the same may be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶67

The first Respondent - Mr. Ramegowda, is also agreeable with this proposal.

¶68

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB RFA No. 483 of 2021

¶69

In the above circumstances, this Appeal is disposed off in terms of the subject compromise to which additional condition of paying Rs.2,00,000/- is superadded in terms of the undertaking given by the Appellants. The Registry shall refund the fee to the first respondentM.K.Ramegowda forthwith and the deficit shall be made good by the appellants by handing the remainder to him within four weeks. The impugned Judgment & Decree are set at naught.

¶70

Registry to draw the Decree accordingly.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

R Rathanprem v. Sri.M K Ramegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Rathanprem v. Sri.M K Ramegowda

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 N B Suryanarayana Vs Sri N B Jayakumar

Sri. H L Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Girija Shetty Vs Smt Devaki Shedthi

Sri. Mahadeva @ Mahadevu Vs Smt. Mahadevamma

Smt. Nandini a T Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramaswamy Reddy @ Rama Swamy Vs Sri H C Vasu S/O Chinna Bayyappa