Disposed

Mahalinga Devadiga v. Susheela @ Susheela Madhyastha

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2024RSA/1212/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of two regular second appeals filed against decrees in rent recovery suits. The court accepted a compromise petition where appellants paid respondents to settle all claims regarding the properties, including future rents and mesne profits, thereby modifying the lower court decrees.

What did the court decide?

Judgments and decrees of the trial and first appellate courts were modified to reflect the compromise; appeals disposed of.

Mahalinga Devadiga Vs Susheela @ Susheela… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32800 RSA No. 1212 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1046 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1212 OF 2016 (MON)

¶7

C/W

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1046 OF 2016 (RES)

¶9

IN RSA NO. 1212/2016

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MAHALINGA DEVADIGA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

1(a) SHWETA NARESH DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O MAHALINGA DEVAIDGA MARVEL IDEAL, SPACIO, B-1302 JAGADAMBA BHAVAN BEHIND AMBEDKAR HOTEL UNDRI - 411 060.

¶14

1(b) PALLAVI MAHESH DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D/O MAHALINGA DEVADIGA 21, SAVITHRI CHS LTD MALAVIYA ROAD VILE PARLE EAST MUMBAI - 400 057.

¶15

1(c) GURUDUTT MAHALINGA PADUKONE AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32800 RSA No. 1212 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1046 of 2016

¶17

S/O MAHALINGA DEVADIGA B-207, GAGAN LAWISH PHASE-2 BEHIND DHARMAVAT PETROL PUMP PISOLI (NV) PUNE - 411 060.

¶18

NIRMALA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O MAHALINGA DEVADIGA, HADAVU VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT P.O.KUNDAPUR-576 201.

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VYASA RAO K S.,ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SUSHEELA @ SUSHEELA MADHYASTHA AGED 62 YEARS W/O SURYANARAYANA MADHYASTHA R/O KOTAPADY OF GUJJADY VILLAGE, P.O.KUNDAPURA-576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶23

JAYALAKSHMI KARANTH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O CT-33,ITTINA, NEELA APARTMENT, NEAR SAMPIGENAGAR, ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU-560 010.

¶24

RAMACHANDRA MAIYYA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32800 RSA No. 1212 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1046 of 2016

¶26

KRISHNA MAIYYA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶27

GANESH MAIYYA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶28

PREMA @ PREMA L. MAYYA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶29

RESPONDENT NO.6 IS THE WIFE AND OTHERS ARE CHILDREN OF BABU MAIYYA,

¶30

RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE R/AT KOTAPADY OF GUJJADY VILLAGE, P.O.KUNDAPURA-576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SMT. NAYANASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR

¶33

SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6)

¶34

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.03.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.44/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.03.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.276/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) KUNDAPURA; TRIAL COURT PARTLY DECREED THE

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32800 RSA No. 1212 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1046 of 2016

¶36

SUIT. APPELLATE COURT ALLOWED THE APPEAL. THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶37

IN RSA NO. 1046/2016

¶38

BETWEEN:

¶39

MAHALINGA DEVADIGA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶40

1(a) SHWETA NARESH DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O MAHALINGA DEVAIDGA MARVEL IDEAL, SPACIO, B-1302 JAGADAMBA BHAVAN BEHIND AMBEDKAR HOTEL UNDRI - 411 060.

¶41

1(b) PALLAVI MAHESH DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D/O MAHALINGA DEVADIGA 21, SAVITHRI CHS LTD MALAVIYA ROAD VILE PARLE EAST MUMBAI - 400 057.

¶42

1(c) GURUDUTT MAHALINGA PADUKONE AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O MAHALINGA DEVADIGA B-207, GAGAN LAWISH PHASE-2 BEHIND DHARMAVAT PETROL PUMP PISOLI (NV) PUNE - 411 060.

¶43

- 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32800 RSA No. 1212 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1046 of 2016

¶44

NIRMALA DEVADIGA

¶45

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O MAHALINGA DEVADIGA, HADAVU VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT P.O.KUNDAPUR-576 201.

¶46

…APPELLANTS

¶47

(BY SRI. VYASA RAO K S.,ADVOCATE)

¶48

AND:

¶49

SUSHEELA @ SUSHEELA MADHYASTHA AGED 68 YEARS W/O SURYANARAYANA MADHYASTHA R/O KOTAPADY OF GUJJADY VILLAGE, P.O.KUNDAPURA-576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶50

JAYALAKSHMI KARANTH W/O CHANDRASHEKAR KARANTH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O CT-33,ITTINA, NEELA APARTMENT, NEAR SAMPIGENAGAR, ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU-560 010.

¶51

RAMACHANDRA MAIYYA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶52

KRISHNA MAIYYA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶53

GANESH MAIYYA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32800 RSA No. 1212 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1046 of 2016

¶55

6. PREMA L. MAYYA

¶56

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶57

RESPONDENT NO.6 IS THE WIFE AND OTHERS ARE CHILDREN OF BABU MAIYYA,

¶58

RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE R/AT KOTAPADY OF GUJJADY VILLAGE, P.O.KUNDAPURA-576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶59

…RESPONDENTS

¶60

(BY SMT. NAYANASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6)

¶61

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST

¶62

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.03.2016 PASSED IN R.A NO.50/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.03.2005 PASSED IN O.S NO.276/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), KUNDAPURA; TRIAL COURT PARTLY DECREED THE SUIT. APPELLATE COURT ALLOWED THE APPEAL. THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RENT.

¶63

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

¶64

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:32800 RSA No. 1212 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1046 of 2016

¶65

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶66

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶67

The present second appeals arise out of the Judgment and decree in R.A Nos.44/2005 and 50/2005 dated 19.03.2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Kundapura modifying the Judgment and decree in O.S. No.276/1994 dated 05.03.2005 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.,], Kundapura.

¶68

The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit claiming arrears of rent in respect of the suit property. The appellants herein were the defendants before the trial Court. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part directing the defendants to pay the rents to the plaintiff from the date of deposit of Artha amount as per the terms of Ex.P5. The plaintiff and the defendants preferred appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court modified the Judgment and decree of the trial Court and passed the following order.

¶69

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32800 RSA No. 1212 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1046 of 2016

¶70

"The plaintiffs are entitled recover the rent from the defendants from the Khrodi 21.3.86 to 10.04.1994, Khsaya 29.03.87 to 10.04.1994 Prabhava 18-03-88 to 10-4-1994, Vibhava 21.03.89 to 10.04.1994, Shukla 26-03-1990 to 1004-1994, Pramodha 16-03-1991 to 10-04-1994, Prajapathi 03-04-92 to 10-04-1994, Angirasa 2303-1993 to 10.04.1994 Srimukha 10-04-1994 With interest at 12.5% per annum.

¶71

However, rent shall be paid after fixation of the rate of rice per manige during the said period in a proper enquiry held separately.

¶72

The plaintiffs are also at liberty to withdraw the Artha amount deposited before the lower Court.

¶73

Regular Appeal No.44/2005 filed by the appellants under section 96, Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC are hereby dismissed."

¶74

The appellants and the respondents have filed compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure and the compromise petition is duly signed by appellant No.1(a) for herself and on behalf of GPA of appellant No.1(b), appellant No.1(c) and appellant No.2 and respondent No.4 for himself, GPA of respondent Nos.1

¶75

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:32800 RSA No. 1212 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1046 of 2016

¶76

to 3, 5 and 6, supported by affidavit of appellant No.1[a] and respondent No.4. Appellant No.1(c) and respondent No.4 are present before the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.

¶77

The terms of the compromise petition read as

¶78

under:

¶79

"5. That the Appellants have today handed over Demand Draft bearing No. 250336, dated 1805-2024, drawn on HDFC Bank, in favour of Krishna Maiyya (Respondent No.4) for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). The Respondent No. 4 acknowledges the receipt of sadi draft on behalf of himself and other Respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and 6.

¶80

6 It is submitted that the Respondents have received the afore said amount in full and final settlement of the dispute involved. The Respondents or their legal representatives shall not claim any right, title or interest in respect of Plaint'A' schedule properties and the plaint reliefs, in future.

¶81

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:32800 RSA No. 1212 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1046 of 2016

¶82

7. The Respondents have no objection for the Appellants enjoying the Plaint Properties of their own will and wish. The Respondents have given up their all claims in respect of the plaint properties in consideration of the receipt of the above amount. The Respondents give up their claim regarding future rents and mesne profit."

¶83

The compromise petition forms part and parcel

¶84

of this order. In terms of the compromise petition, the Judgment and decree of the trial Court and the first appellate Court stands modified.

¶85

The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

¶86

In the light of disposal of the appeals, pending

¶87

applications if any would not survive for consideration.

¶88

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶89

AN/-

Mahalinga Devadiga v. Susheela @ Susheela Madhyastha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahalinga Devadiga v. Susheela @ Susheela Madhyastha

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

Shri Mahadevaiah Vs New Cambridge School

M/S Volvo Buses India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Sri. Mohammed Niaz Rashid Vs Smt. L. Susheela

Sri M Dhananjaya Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P B Hemachandra Vs Dr Kamath B N N

Mr Azamthullah a Vs Bescom Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.