Second appeal over a decreed suit for specific performance of a sale agreement was settled by compromise: appellants paid Rs.4,00,000 to the respondent in lieu of the agreement amount, who gave up all rights in the suit property; the court recorded the fulfilled compromise.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:19408 RSA No. 459 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 459 OF 2013 (SP)
BETWEEN:
VENKATESHEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
APPELLANTS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE ALL RESIDING AT: THONDAL VILLAGE GAVADAGERE HOBLI
HUNSUR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:19408 RSA No. 459 of 2013
SRI K N RAMESH RAO S/O K NAGARAJ RAO AGED ABOUT YEARS C M ROAD, K R NAGARA TOWN MYSORE DISTRICT-571602
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. NANDINI B., ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED, 20.10.2012, PASSED IN R.A.NO.231/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT AT HUNSUR MYSORE DISTRICT AND ALSO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE, DATED, 01.03.2012, PASSED IN O.S.NO.323/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUNSUR AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEF’S AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEMS FIT TO GRANT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
following reliefs;
Set aside the judgment and decree dated, 20.10.2012, passed in R.A.No.231/2012, on the file of the Fast Track Court at Hunsur Mysore District and also setaside the judgment and decree, dated, 01.03.2012, passed in O.S.No.323/2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Hunsur and allow this appeal with costs throughout and grant such other relief or relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit to grant, in the circumstances of this Appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
NC: 2024:KHC:19408 RSA No. 459 of 2013
have entered into a compromise and a compromise petition under Order 23, Rule 3 of CPC has been filed which reads as under:-
Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The Appellants and Respondent are begs to submit as follows:-
1. The Respondent who is the Plaintiff before the trial court, had filed the suit O.S.No.323/2006, in the court of the Senior Civil Judge At Hunsur, against one Venkateshgowda who is the Husband of the 1st Appellant and father of the Appellant No 2 to 4, for Specific Performance of agreement dated 03.09.2005, alleging that the deceased Venkateshgowda had agreed to sell the suit schedule properties for the total consideration amount of Rs, 1, 94, 000/- and received a sum of Rs, 1,64,000/- and balance Rs, 30,000/- is agreed to receive at the time of Registration. But, the said Venkateshgowda died before registration and his Lrs are brought on record who are the Appellants herein. The said suit was decreed in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff.
2. It is submitted that against the Judgment and decree dated, 01.03.2021, passed in O.S.No.323/2006, on file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Hunsur, the Appellants herein have Preferred the R. A. No.231/2012, on the File of the Fast Track Court at Hunsur., and the same is dismissed by its judgment and decree dated 28.10.2012, by confirming the judgment and decree passed in the trial court.
3. Now being aggrieved by both the said judgment and decree the Appellants herein preferred this Regular Second Appeal before this Hon'ble court and the same is admitted by its order dated, 20.09.2013, by framing the following Substantial Question of law.
NC: 2024:KHC:19408 RSA No. 459 of 2013
i) Whether the discretion u/sec 20 (2) of the specific relief act, has been judiciously exercised?
ii) Whether a contract for sale of immovable property belonging to coparceners; contract by one of them to sell the whole property is binding on others?
iii) Whether the plaintiff could legality transact to purchase agricultural land in view of the provision of sec 79 (A) and (B), when he is not on agriculturalist?
4. Now, the appellants and Respondent herein on the advice of their elders and relatives have decided to settle the dispute involved in the above Appeal on the following terms and conditions:
i) The Respondent agrees for receiving an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) instead of Rs,1,64, 000/- of total Sale Consideration from the appellants by given up his right of respect of Specific Preformation of Contract in respect of the suit schedule Property; since the Appellants are in Continuous in possession and enjoyment of the suit Schedule property.
ii) Similarly, the Appellants herein agrees to pay a sum of Rs, 4,00,000/- in lieu of Sale agreement Amount of Rs, 1,64,000/to the Respondent herein and accordingly the Plaintiff /Respondent herein is already received a sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- and balance amount Of Rs, 3, 00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs) is agrees to receive before this Hon'ble court while recording the Compromise petition. And, accordingly they have paid the full consideration amount before this Hon'ble court.
iii) The Respondent herein is declared himself that he have no right whatsoever on the suit schedule property and relinquished his right accrued in the judgment and decree dated, 01.03.2021, passed in O.S.No.323/2006, on file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Hunsur, confirmed in R. A. No.231/2012, on the File of the Fast Track Court at Hunsur., and the same is dismissed by its judgment and decree dated 28.10.2012, by confirming the judgment and decree passed in the trial court, by withdrawing the O.S.No.323/2006, on file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Hunsur.
iv) In view of this above compromise petition; the suit O.S.No.323/2006, filed by the Respondent/ Plaintiff before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Hunsur, is liable to be dismissed
v) In view of this above compromise the Appellants herein are entitled to receive the Court fee paid in this Appeal Memo and also before the 1st Appellate court.
WHEREFORE, we humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may please to:-
a) Modify the judgment and decree of the courts below in terms of this Joint compromise petition.
b) And, dismiss the suit O.S.No.323/2006, on file of the Senior Civil Judge at Hunsur filed by the Respondent / Plaintiff for specific Performance of the Contract.
c) Consequently dismiss the above Appeal as withdrawn, in the interest of justice and equity.
sale by receiving a sum of Rupees four lakhs, out of which, Rupees one lakh has already been received by him and today a sum of Rupees three lakhs has been received by him in cash. He also confirms that upon receipt of the said amounts, he shall not have any right over the suit, scheduled property, or any part thereof. The settlement which has been arrived n at between the parties being lawful and permitted under law. The settlement by way of compromise is taken on record, the payments having already been made by appellants No.2, 3 and 4 to the respondent, the terms of compromise having stood fulfilled, no further order is required to be passed for drawing up of a decree or otherwise.
Sd/JUDGE
PRS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Venkateshegowda since dead by his LRS (Smt Lalithamma, Sri Mohan Kumar, Sri Dilip Kumar, Smt Tejaswini)
Sri K N Ramesh Rao
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
