Disposed

Smt. Malathy Desikan v. Smt. R Venkatalakshmamma

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2024RFA/639/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular first appeal against dismissal of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction over a co-operative society site was compromised between the appellant, respondent No.2 and proposed purchaser respondent No.4 for Rs.4.10 crores. The court accepted the compromise under Order XXXIII Rule 3 CPC and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in terms of compromise; sale deed to be executed within 3 months with payment of balance consideration as per paragraph 12.

Smt. Malathy Desikan Vs Smt. R Venkatalakshmamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44042 RFA No. 639 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MALATHY DESIKAN W/O V. DESIKAN, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.134, SIVANANDA COLONY, TATABAD, COIMBATORE - 641 012. REPRESENTED BY HER SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER

¶9

SRI. R.S.RAJAN, S/O LATE N. RANGACHARY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.228/4, S. C. W. ROAD, GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 019.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. R. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE VENKATACHALAPATHY, (SINCE DECEASED BY LRS)

¶15

SRI. RAVI KUMAR S V AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATACHALAPATHI,

¶16

(DEAD AS PER ORDER DATED 19.03.2024 LRS ARE RESPONDENT NO.2 AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 19.03.2024.)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:44042 RFA No. 639 of 2021

¶19

SRI. MANJUNATHA S V AGED ABOUT 45 YEAR, S/O LATE VENKATACHALAPATHI, RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.4, 1^ST CROSS, 14^TH MAIN, II PHASE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶20

VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE LTD., (FORMERLY THE WRITERS' AND ARTISTS' HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.35, RATNAVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶21

(DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2024.)

¶22

SMT. G. SUJATHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O V A GIRISH NAIDU R/AT NO.111, 1^ST 'C' CROSS, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, 3^RD PHASE, KRISHNAIAH LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SHARATH K R., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - DEAD.

¶25

VIDE ORDER DATED 30/10/2024 R3 IS DELETED.

¶26

SRI. DIVYA TEJ H.N., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶27

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.03.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3719/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:44042 RFA No. 639 of 2021

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff represented by the SPA holder under Section 96 of CPC for dispensation of the suit passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.3719/2010 dated 15.03.2024 by XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶34

During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 had died and legal representative was respondent No.1(a) who was brought on records, but he also said to have died. Presently, only respondent No.2 is contesting the matter.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant had deleted the name of the respondent No.3/Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Ltd., and this court had permitted the proposed respondent No.4 to implead herself as the party in this appeal.

¶36

However, during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant and respondent No.2 along with the respondent No.4 entered into compromise and filed joint compromise application under Order XXXIII Rule 3, read with 151 of CPC, as per the

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44042 RFA No. 639 of 2021

¶38

terms of the compromise, where it is stated that the suit schedule property said to be allotted by the respondent No.3/Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Ltd., to the respondent No.1. Even though the appellant said to be purchased the same from the earlier association i..e, by the Writer's & Artists' House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., which was later said to be merged with the respondent No.3/Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Ltd., now the present respondent No.4/G.Sujatha said to be an agreement holder who undertook to purchase the schedule property from the appellant, as well as from respondent No.2, as per the terms of an agreement. The sale consideration was proposed for Rs.4.10 crores, out of which, appellant had agreed for receiving Rs.1 crore 70 lakhs and respondent No.2 was to be paid an amount of Rs.2 crores 40 lakhs by the proposed purchaser/respondent No.4, herein. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 said to have paid Rs.20 lakhs as advance to the appellant and another Rs.20 lakhs to the respondent No.2 by way of cheques stated in the paragraph 12 of the terms of the compromise. The remaining Rs.3 crores 70 lakhs was to be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed by

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44042 RFA No. 639 of 2021

¶40

respondent No.4 to the appellant as well as respondent No.2. The appellant, respondent No.2, as well as respondent No.4 are present in person before this court, they have also accepted the terms of compromise before the court in the presence of their counsel, the compromise in accordance with law. Hence, the same is accepted.

¶41

Accordingly I.A.No.1/2024, is allowed. The parties are permitted to compromise the case.

¶42

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise.

¶43

The respondent No.4 shall get executed the sale deed within 3 months by paying balance consideration. as agreed in the paragraph No.12 of the compromise application.

¶44

Draw decree Accordingly.

¶45

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶46

AKV

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT:SK

Smt. Malathy Desikan v. Smt. R Venkatalakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Malathy Desikan v. Smt. R Venkatalakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Kempegowda. D. B. @ Kempa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Mahadevamma Vs Smt Gangamma

Sri Nipun Gupta Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. M. Manjula Vs Dr.C.Parvathi

Prakash @ Neni Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Vinoda M M Vs Smt. Gayathri